Ecological Modernisation

David Gibbs
University of Hull
Email Address [Link]@[Link]

Word Count
6065

Abstract
Ecological modernization is an approach to address environmental problems that suggests
ecological crisis can be resolved politically, economically and technologically in the context
of existing institutions and power structures and continued economic growth. Political
institutions and processes can be modernized in order to change the direction of the economy
towards environmental improvement. It places considerable emphasis on the roles of
technology, innovation and market dynamics as drivers for change. Ecological
modernization is both a theory of, and a practical program for, change. Despite incorporation
into policies in a number of nation states, ecological modernization has been criticised for its
poor theorization of the state and power relations, as well as its co-option by vested interests.

Introduction

A growing recognition that the result of human impacts upon the environment is a key
challenge for global society has led to a number of responses from academics and policy
makers alike. However, although there is broad agreement that the world is experiencing
major environmental changes as a consequence, notably enhanced global warming and
climatic change, there is much less agreement on how these problems should be tackled.
There is a spectrum of opinions here, from that of deep green ecologists, who would advocate
wholesale restructuring of the economy and society, through to some economists who see the
market as being capable of restoring environmental equilibrium. One approach to addressing
environmental problems which takes a position between these two is ecological
modernization. Unlike the more radical green approaches, ecological modernization suggests
that the ecological crisis can be reconciled with current forms of economic development and
institutions to form a new mode of development for capitalist economies. However, in some
versions it also sees a greater role for purposive intervention than just relying on market
forces. Ecological modernization privileges the role of technology, especially the role of
innovation, and market dynamics as drivers for change. While these may have been the
source of past environmental degradation it is argued that when directed towards solving
environmental problems, innovation and markets can be combined with the modernization of
political institutions and processes to steer a change towards environmental (and economic)
improvement. Competitiveness and economic growth are seen as compatible with
environmental protection, with solutions to the major global problems such as climate change
found in more modernization, not in reduced industrial production or economic growth.
Ecological modernization frames environmental problems in such a way that they can be
solved politically, economically and technologically in the context of existing institutions and
power structures and continued economic growth. Ecological modernization, at least in some
forms, appears to allow us to have it all – not only does it deliver environmental
improvement, but it also does so without seriously challenging existing economic practices.
Indeed, ecological modernization suggests that addressing environmental problems can
produce ‘win-win’ outcomes that increase firms’ profits, as well as an improved environment.

1
It is this seeming compatibility with mainstream economic activity, if only we can be forward
thinking and modern enough to make this ecological shift, which helps to explain the
appearance of ecological modernization in policy.

In policy terms, ecological modernization aims to move beyond ‘environment versus

economy’ debates whereby environmental regulation is seen as a hindrance to business.
Rather, environmental regulation can be seen as a necessary catalyst for innovation and the
development of new markets. The trade-off thus turns into a positive-sum game. In this form
ecological modernization appears in the guise of a pragmatic programme for business and
government. In the absence of regulation and incentives, it is argued that companies will
have little incentive to develop ecologically desirable (and profitable) innovations. By
introducing environmental regulation, governments can encourage innovations and products
that lead to high environmental standards and assure the future competitiveness of their
industries in global markets. As an approach, therefore, ecological modernization represents
not just an academic and theoretical analysis, but also a practical guide to appropriate
responses. These two approaches have also been characterized as the ‘analytical and
descriptive’ versus the ‘normative and prescriptive’. While ecological modernization may
appear to offer hope for those committed to stronger environmental protection measures,
critics have argued that ecological modernization can equally serve as a cover for business-
as-usual with a slight green tinge or ‘green wash’. In this sense, the term could serve to
legitimise the continued destruction of the environment and foreground the industrial and
technocratic discourses of modernity over more critical ecological ones.

Ecological Modernization as Theory

Ecological modernization has a relatively optimistic and constructive view of the potential for
society to find solutions to environmental problems. The approach gives a central role to
science, technology and the state and proposes that economic development, social welfare
and environmental protection can not only be reconciled, but also in the process positive
synergies for future development are generated. It focuses on technological solutions and
eco-efficiency gains that can be introduced, and managed, with a minimal amount of change
in existing institutional arrangements. One of the central arguments of ecological
modernization is that our current day institutions can be progressively transformed and
modernized in order to avoid an ecological crisis. The concept was first developed in the
1980s by Joseph Huber (1982) and Martin Jänicke (1985). In Huber’s (1982, 1985) view,
industrial society needed to experience a transition away from the current basis of industrial
society towards a new relationship between economy and ecology to create a more
ecologically rational organization of production. Huber called this transition an “ecological
switchover” and, using a biological metaphor, suggested that in the process, “the dirty and
ugly industrial caterpillar will transform into a[n] ecological butterfly” (Huber 1985: 20). An
ecological modernization approach would involve structural change at both the
macroeconomic level, through broad sectoral shifts in the economy, and the microeconomic
level, for example, through the use of new and clean technologies by individual firms. As
these shifts develop over time there will be a growth in eco-efficiency as the amount of raw
material incorporated into finished products diminishes and waste streams are reduced, both
in terms of their quantity and toxicity. This view has a strong faith in the ability of the
capacity of markets to deliver environmental technologies to solve major environmental
problems.

2
In theoretical terms, the concept has been developed to analyze the necessary changes to the
central institutions in modern society in order to solve the growing ecological crisis.
Ecological modernization involves the transformation of institutions and social practices in
industrialized societies, where the motivation to make this transformation comes from
growing recognition of environmental problems. Ecological modernization indicates the
possibility of overcoming environmental crises without leaving the path of modernization.
This use of the concept exemplifies Huber’s ecological switchover whereby ecological
modernization represents a major transformation of current day industrial and economic
systems into a form which reduces its environmental impacts and maintains the resource base
for future development. However, ecological modernization does not assume that this will
involve radical changes to our ways of living. The assumption is that processes of production
and consumption can be restructured on ecological terms through the institutionalization of
ecological aims. However, it is of key importance that environmental factors are not just
taken into account in this restructuring process, but they must be considered as central to the
future development of both production and consumption. The rationale for this is not to
assert that ecological issues have primacy over economic rationales, but that the former
should be given equal weight if the desired outcomes are to be achieved. At the heart of the
ecological switchover concept are three central points:

 Production and consumption can be restructured towards ecological goals. This

involves the development and diffusion of clean production technologies and
decoupling economic development from its resource inputs, resource use and
subsequent emissions;

 The ‘economization of nature’ through placing an economic value on nature,

including the introduction of structural tax reform and a shift away from taxing
environmental ‘goods’ such as employment towards environmental ‘bads’ such as
pollution and carbon emissions;

 The integration of environmental policy goals into all other policy areas.

The Development of Ecological Modernization Theory

Ecological modernisation theory emerged in a European context from the 1980s onwards, in
part as a practical application of the discourse of sustainable development and in part as a
counterweight to calls from radical ecologists for wholesale social and institutional change.
From these initial formulations in the 1980s, a number of approaches have developed in
ecological modernization theory (for overviews, see Mol and Spaargaren 2000; Spaargaren,
Mol, and Buttel 2000; Mol and Sonnenfeld 2000). Three broad phases can be identified in the
development of the theory. In the first phase, developed by Huber (1982, 1985) and Jänicke
(1985), there was a heavy emphasis on the role of technological innovation, a critical attitude
toward the state, and a belief in the power of market forces and actors to deliver change.
Huber’s perspective was that ecological modernization offers a way out of ecological crisis
through more industrialization, albeit with changed production and consumption. However,
this view has been criticized for overemphasizing the industrial and technological aspects and
neglecting the social context within which they occur. In Huber’s initial work, the ecological
switchover is a logical, necessary, and inevitable stage in the development of the industrial
system. From this perspective, technological developments are largely autonomously
determined and lead to change in industrial systems and their relations with the social and
natural environment. The key role of technology as a propulsive force in Huber’s work

3
means that the state has a limited role in redirecting the processes of production and
consumption. More generally, while a central argument of ecological modernization at this
stage was that modern institutions can be restructured on ecological lines and away from a
purely economic rationale, as a theory it had little to say on the extent to which institutions
can be reformed – this was open to empirical investigation.

The second phase of work, from the late 1980s onward, placed less emphasis on
technological determinism as a driving force, had a more balanced perspective on the role of
state and market forces in the process of ecological modernization, and emphasized
institutional and cultural dynamics. Hajer (1993) proposed that there are two interpretations
of ecological modernization. The first of these is Huber’s ‘techno-corporatist’ interpretation,
which emphasizes the ‘economization of nature’ and elitist decision-making structures. A
second interpretation shifts the focus from being simply upon the necessary production and
consumption changes, and extends it to encompass the need to incorporate greater
democratization, a redistribution agenda, and ideas of social justice. Christoff (1996)
characterized these two interpretations as “weak” and “strong” versions of ecological
modernization (see Table 1). Drawing on Ulrike Beck’s work on risk society, Hajer further
developed the second interpretation of strong ecological modernization, as reflexive
ecological modernization. In this formulation, political and economic development proceed
on the basis of critical self-awareness involving greater public scrutiny and democratic
control. Conversely, weak ecological modernization is seen as a lifeline for capitalist
economies threatened by ecological crisis and unlikely to lead to the kinds of substantive
change needed to avoid this.

(Table 1 about here)

A third phase of work on ecological modernization theory devoted more attention to

consumption processes and attempted to deal with criticism that ecological modernization is a
Eurocentric approach, given that the theory was developed in Germany and subsequent work
focused largely on Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries. Thus research has
examined developments in a diverse range of nation states including Australia, Brazil, China,
South Africa, Russia, New Zealand, and the USA in attempts to see how far the theory can be
used to explain a range of environmental policy developments in these countries (see
Scheinberg, 2003; Jepson, 2005; Kotilainen et al , 2008; Milanez and Bührs, 2008;
Schlosberg and Renfret, 2008; Curran, 2009; Howes et al, 2010; Lai et al, 2012; Long and
Patel, 2011; Memon et al, 2011). While this third phase still conceptualizes environmental
problems as the key motivation for the introduction of reforms in social, technical, and
economic spheres, there are some additional changes. In particular, nation states shift
towards more decentralized and consensual styles of governance and there is a greater
incorporation of social movements which become more engaged with the state’s reform
agenda and less involved in confrontation with the state. Such reforms should increase the
involvement of non-state actors via negotiations, market mechanisms and dynamics. Thus
recent approaches to ecological modernization reforms of environmental policy involve a
shift away from a model of environmental change that is hierarchical and dictated by the
state. In the same vein, the technological aspects of reforms to environmental policy are not
limited to addressing individual products, emissions or production process steps, but should
also include higher levels of aggregation, production-consumption chains and networks.

Ecological Modernization and the Role of the State

4
Most work on ecological modernization has focused on the potential for environmental
reform at the scale of national governments, environmental movements, and business
enterprises. While other approaches to environmental policy, such as sustainable
development, envisage the ‘hollowing out’ of environmental policy with competencies
moving up to the international scale and down to the local scale, ecological modernization
does not necessarily require de-emphasizing the nation state. In the initial formulation of
ecological modernization by Huber, the state plays little or no role in the ecological
switchover. Indeed state involvement was seen as hindering the development and diffusion of
clean technologies. However, subsequent research has argued that this is an overly technical
perspective and that it is difficult to imagine any moves towards ecological modernization
taking place without some state intervention at various levels. This may not necessarily
involve the need for a strong, bureaucratic state – the suggestion is that the role of the state
should alter to change away from being reactive towards acting in a preventative manner, to
move towards participatory policy making methods, to become decentralized, and to
contextually steer developments rather than direct them in a top-down fashion. Thus
ecological modernization, it is argued, requires political commitment to a longer term and
more holistic approach to the integration of the environment with economic development
rather than a dirigistic approach. Thus it is argued that those nation states where we can see
ecological modernization in operation (at least in its weak form) are those which have
consensual forms of government and decision making arrangements that encourage more
collaborative relationships, such as the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and Japan. Despite
this, Huber in his later work has argued that despite significant progress in these countries,
they remain in the early stages of ecological modernization and that further progress has been
repeatedly delayed. Given this, there is a need to explain why progress has been delayed and
to develop further conceptualizations of the state in ecological modernization theories.

A key area of work which has sought to explain the potential for nation states to undergo
ecological modernization has been undertaken by Martin Jänicke. Overall, he argues that
Huber’s emphasis on corporate ecological modernization is necessary, but not sufficient to
lead to environmental improvement. He suggests that the ability of nation states to undertake
holistic and longer term environmental policy approaches is important and that this results
from the interplay of their economic performance with their capacities for innovation,
strategic thinking and consensual government. From this he develops the concept of
‘environmental capacity’ in order to understand both the conditions that encourage nation
states to address environmental problems and those conditions that can subsequently result in
the implementation of successful policy forms. He then introduces a second concept of
‘strategic capacity’ which refers to the ways environmental protection can become a function
that goes across the whole administrative apparatus of government. It includes the capacity
to dismantle departmental silos, whereby different government departments tend to work in
isolation, towards encouraging joint working and to defuse and dismantle those
disagreements and contradictions across departments that may arise as a consequence.

Jänicke then builds on this theory of strategic capacity to produce a model of policy
explanation. He argues that the capacity for action on environmental issues sets the structural
conditions for successful environmental policy, as well as its limitations. Capacity in this
case therefore refers to both the opportunities and barriers that may arise. In this model,
solutions to environmental problems are developed within structural framework conditions
and within what Jänicke calls ‘situative contexts’, involving actors and their strategies,
together with institutional, economic and informational factors. Strategies are defined as the
general approach taken towards a problem – for example using environmental policies to

5
address problems and achieve goals. Actors, who will include individuals, pressure groups
and third parties, as well as government, are the opponents and proponents of special issues.
The latter have relatively stable general interests and core beliefs, and their capacity for
action depends largely on their strengths and competencies. An important dimension to this
model is that the ability of actors to develop strategies can be significantly influenced by the
situative context, such as an economic recession or a major environmental disaster or
pollution event, which could hinder or encourage policy action. The other component of the
model comprises the ‘structural framework conditions’, which provide the backdrop to the
situative context, actors and strategies. Together these form the broad conditions for
environmental action and give rise to an opportunity structure for actors. This consists of:

 The cognitive-informational framework, that is, the conditions under which

environmental knowledge is produced, distributed, interpreted and applied;
 The political-institutional framework comprising the institutional and legal structures
and institutionalized rule and norms in society;
 The economic-technological framework which includes economic performance,
technology levels and sectoral composition.

The resulting capacity of actors to act (and the success or otherwise of these actions) will be
influenced by the interplay of these three frameworks in any given situation. In utilising this
model to understand the implementation of environmental policy, Jänicke suggests that it
helps gain an understanding of how the potential for ecological modernization may vary
across different nation states and at other scales. The ability to successfully implement
policies will depend upon specific situative contexts and structural frameworks, as well as
upon the composition of local actors and forms of strategies. However, while in theory
ecological modernization is thus useful in helping us to think through some of the changes
that need to be made to change current economies through political programmes, in practice
most subsequent research has rarely addressed the social processes involved through notions
of situative contexts and the constellation of actors at different spatial scales.

Ecological Modernization as Political Program

Ecological modernization is also used to describe a more pragmatic political program to

redirect environmental policy making. As a political program, ecological modernization has
three linked components which are related to the theoretical arguments:

 Compensation for environmental damage and the use of environmental technologies

to minimize the effects of expanding production and consumption on the
environment;

 The introduction of policies to encourage a shift in production and consumption

processes towards the use of clean technologies and greater use of economic valuation
in environmental policies;

 The deindustrialization of economies and a shift towards small-scale units of

production, as well as a closer link between production and consumption.

While few policy makers would perhaps recognise the term, approaches based upon
ecological modernization are increasingly being utilised within policy which seeks to
integrate economic development and the environment. Proponents of ecological

6
modernization have argued that the process of shifting from the first to the second of these is
already underway in countries like Japan, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark
as material flows have become delinked from economic flows, with a simultaneous decline in
the use of natural resources and emissions. This has involved moves to close substance cycles
and the chain from raw materials through to the production process and waste and recycling,
conserving energy and improving the efficiency and utilization of renewable energy sources,
and improving the quality of both production processes and products. As a pragmatic
political program, ecological modernization approaches suggest that these changes will
engender support from private-sector businesses, given that they can have beneficial financial
outcomes – ecological modernization is a response to environmental issues that stresses win-
win outcomes. It is claimed that business can gain advantages in a number of ways. First,
through greater business efficiency as a consequence of reduced pollution and waste
production. Second, through the avoidance of future financial liabilities, such as the potential
future cost of the cleaning up contaminated land. Third, the creation of a better work
environment has positive impacts on recruitment and retention of the workforce. Fourth,
there is greater potential for business through increasing sales of ‘environmentally friendly’
products and services. Finally, there are opportunities for the sale of pollution-prevention
and pollution-abatement technologies to other companies and utilities. In total, then, it could
be argued that ecological modernization has a well-developed perspective on how to
conceptualize economy-environment relationships and a set of policy prescriptions that, if
taken as a whole, would engender the development of a new economic trajectory. Concepts
derived from work on ecological modernization have certainly become incorporated into the
policy agenda, even if their actual implementation has been limited and they are drawn from
the “weak” conceptions in Table 1.

Ecological Modernization: A Critique

In recent years environmentalism has become institutionalized – environmental agendas and

objectives are part and parcel of most nation states’ policies and major corporations devote
space in their reports and on their websites to trumpet their contributions to sustainable
development and corporate social responsibility. Although it is clear that institutional
changes and environmental improvements have occurred and that the changes advocated by
the proponents of ecological modernization are desirable, there are a number of problems
with ecological modernization as a theory and as a policy program. First, one criticism of
ecological modernization as both theory and discourse is that in its weak forms it can help to
legitimate an environmental policy-making culture that absolves private-sector businesses
and major corporations of their broader environmental responsibilities. This is perhaps not
surprising given its emphasis on technological innovation, creating markets for new goods
and services and the role of large producers and retailers in developed economies as a force
for change. Indeed, this may be one reason for its widespread popularity and some sectors of
business have seen substantial profits to be made from improved environmental technologies
and stricter global environmental regulation, for example in the emerging clean tech sectors.
For the advanced capitalist nations, struggling to remain competitive against the rise of
emerging economies in Asia, imposing strong environmental regulations which require high-
tech solutions has provided not only a competitive advantage for their own domestic
industries, but also a strong export market for these same environmental technologies. As a
counter to this, developing economies have been critical of such initiatives, seeing these as a
new form of protectionism and as ‘environmental imperialism’. Thus while ecological
modernization may be predicated upon the potential transformation of capitalist economies, it
is also liable, as a discourse, to be co-opted by powerful economic actors such that there is

7
greater dominance of global resources by transnational industry, national governments, and
‘big science’. Certainly the ecological modernization discourse has been incorporated into
both corporate reporting and the agendas of global economic institutions without much
apparent change to everyday practices. The underlying conceptualizations of ecological
modernization can therefore act to perpetuate the dominant forms of economic power. At the
same time there is little recognition in ecological modernization approaches that some
industries may find it impossible to innovate to reduce their impacts – it may be too
expensive or technologically impossible to do so. In these cases, for example in the fossil
fuel industries or the automotive industry, an alternative strategy may be to lobby for
exemptions or attempt to dilute environmental policies. There are thus limits to the extent to
which changes can be made within the modernization framework – not all sectors may be
able or willing to make the shift. Moreover, other developments may represent a shift away
from ecological modernization processes. For example, the increasing use of fracking for
gas, especially in the USA, appears to be creating a new model for energy production, albeit
aligned to the existing carbon-based system. The environmental impacts of this, both through
increased carbon emissions and more localized concerns over water table pollution, are
considerable.
ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY—VOL. 82 NO. 2—82204-Gibbs
Second, despite a focus on the institutional reorganization of society, ecological
modernization approaches often contain little detailed analysis of the forms of institutional
adaptation or change that are required. It can be argued that this is a product of the under-
theorization of the state in ecological modernization and oversimplifying assumptions about
the role of states in ecological transformations. As was pointed out earlier, in Huber’s work
the role of the (central, regional, or local) state was seen as minimal. In later accounts, there
has been a more sophisticated understanding that the state performs an enabling and
contextually steering role. Often though, the appearance of institutional changes is presented
as evidence that ‘ecological rationality’ has started to challenge ‘economic rationality’.
Although Jänicke’s concept of the ‘environmental capacity’ of states focused on their ability
to make the shift to ecological modernization and others have argued that the integration of
social and environmental movements into the policymaking process is driving the process
forward, there is still little detail of the form of institutional adaptation or change required at
the nation-state level, let alone at subnational scales. One argument is that ecological
modernization sublimates the ‘enabling state’ as the institutional response that will secure the
efficient functioning of the market economy within a framework of state regulation. In this
view, the enabling state will deliver ecological modernization through corporatist
relationships between government and industry, although co-opting environmental
movements when necessary. Certainly, many accounts have recognized the continued
importance of the nation-state, albeit one that is no longer solely responsible (if it ever was)
for environmental governance. This failure to adequately conceptualize the state and the
social processes at work means that the type of embedded cultural transformations that will
sustain factors, such as environmental improvements, reduced consumption, and greater
equity, are unlikely to be realized. Third, ecological modernization lacks a theory of power
relations. In some accounts, the assumption often appears to be that the logic of ecological
modernization is so obvious (and profitable for business) that its widespread adoption is
simply a matter of time as long as a mix of international civil society and environmental
nongovernmental organizations keep up the pressure. In a situation where nobody seems to
oppose it and where the theory lacks any scope to encompass power relations, there is little
perceived room for opposition and ecological modernization is assumed to occur almost
automatically. In other accounts, ecological modernization will only occur if there is
sufficient societal, political, administrative, and organisational capacity. Even then, this

8
needs to be accompanied by the presence of a range of variables, such as strong corporatist
institutions, innovative legal and informational systems, and a proficient regulatory system.

However, the reasons why such changes should have occurred and when and where are rarely
addressed. The implementation of ecological modernization, as with any policy, however, is
about the exercise of political and economic power, and although this is rarely made explicit,
ecological modernization is a fundamentally political concept. Whether it can be successfully
introduced depends upon questions such as who is in control, who sets agendas, who
allocates resources, who mediates disputes, and ultimately who sets the rules of the game.
Ecological modernization is thus as much an ideological and political issue as it is an
ecological and economic one. While the proponents of ecological modernization are not
necessarily unaware of these issues, the driving force behind the development of
‘environmental capacity’ and institutional reorganization is rarely made explicit, although
there is a strong emphasis upon market-based measures and pressures from civil society.
Similarly, while some commentators have argued that ecological modernization is not a
seamless progression towards a better future and that ‘ecological subversion’ may reverse the
semi-permanent character of the ecological modernization process, the motivation for this is
also not made explicit. Some critics have identified ecological modernization as being part of
the wider move towards the neo-liberalization of society and economic policy, such that real
transformative change is impossible. Indeed, ecological modernization has been criticised by
both neo-Marxist and deep green critics who argue that the current capitalist system is
inherently unable to reform itself along ecological lines beyond a weak ‘light-green’ reform
programme of ‘green washing’ and that more fundamental structural changes are needed in
the economy and society. In the process, the logics of neo-liberalism and ecological
modernisation are said to have depoliticised environmental policy through scientific and
econocentric discourses to exclude the consideration of alternative strategies. Certainly
advocates of ecological modernization have had little to say about the impact of neo-liberal
economic policies upon the environment, nor about the ability of markets to resolve
environmental crisis. Such a critique would suggest that ecological modernization needs a
more radical edge to it if it is to lead to any substantive changes. This would require
addressing the key underlying processes at work, including the associated power structures,
social relations, institutional configurations, discourses and belief systems, that currently lead
to environmental and social injustice. At the stronger end of ecological modernization, the
incorporation of environmental justice would require considering alternative modes of
production, consumption, and distribution to current forms if ecological modernization is to
be a more radical programme of political action. To some extent, this point is recognized in
the work of Hajer (1995) and his ‘argumentative approach’. In his approach politics is
included in the analysis in the form of a struggle for discursive hegemony whereby the actors
involved attempt to secure support for and impose their particular definition of environmental
policy. In this case, the discourse of ecological modernization, at least in its weak version
appears to be politically attractive as it provides a means to both accommodate radical
environmental critics and to revive developed nation economies through a new round of
capital accumulation based upon environmental technologies and products. However,
ecological modernization is not (yet, at least) a distinct social theory; to become so, it needs
to adequately incorporate theories of politics and the state.

Ecological Modernization in Geographical Uses

Some geographers have drawn implicitly upon the concepts of ecological modernization.
Soyez (2002), for example, used the term eco-modernization as a synonym for ecological

9
modernization. More recently, Bailey and Wilson (2009) and Bailey et al (2011) use
ecological modernisation as a way to frame debates around climate change. However,
despite the growing importance of ecological modernization as both a theory and a pragmatic
program, relatively few geographers have explicitly engaged in the ecological modernization
debate to advance its theoretical development compared to those working in the field of
environmental policy and politics (for an exception, see a special issue of Geoforum 2000).
However, strong parallels with ecological modernization can be seen in the work of Hayter
and Le Heron (2002) and Hudson (2000, 2001). Hayter and Le Heron drew upon research by
Freeman (1992) on techno-economic paradigms (TEPs) to develop his suggestion that a
‘green paradigm’ will form the basis of future economic development. This paradigm, they
suggested, will involve both technological and institutional changes. It will revolve around
the dematerialization of the economy, the internalization of environmental values by industry,
and the prioritization of the environment within research and development (R&D), as well as
take-back strategies and a shift toward selling services, rather than products. In Freeman’s
original theorization, new TEPs arise when the economy is confronted by crises that cannot
be solved by the existing TEPs. However, far from being a technological determinist
argument, in a similar manner to ecological modernization, emphasis is placed on the
development of a set of matching institutional forms, including business organization, labor
relations, R&D structures, and international regulatory forms. While Hayter and Le Heron
(2002) did not use the term, there are strong parallels between their view of a green TEP and
ecological modernization. They argue that in a green TEP, environmental imperatives form
the motivation for more widespread systemic change and priorities for innovation are geared
towards reducing energy and materials use of energy and materials in transportation,
construction and manufacturing systems. Similarly, Hudson (2000, 2001) developed the idea
of “eco-Keynesianism” as a way of resolving the competing pressures of generating profits,
providing work, and protecting the natural environment. He argued that this would be an
attempt at radical reformism which combined environmental and social sustainability while
respecting the profitability imperatives of a capitalist economy (Hudson 2001). Although his
‘sustainable eco-capitalism’ has a much stronger emphasis on social justice, as with
ecological modernization, it similarly involves the widespread use of clean technologies and
environmentally friendly production.

Table 1. Characteristics of “Weak” and “Strong” Ecological Modernization

‘Weak’ Ecological Modernization ‘Strong Ecological Modernization
 Technological solutions to  Broad changes to institutional and
environmental problems economic structure of society
 Technocratic/corporatist styles of incorporating ecological concerns
policy making by scientific,  Open, democratic decision making
economic, and political elites with participation and involvement
 Restricted to developed nations who  Concerned with the international
use ecological modernization to dimensions of the environment and
consolidate their global economic development
advantages  A more open-ended approach with
 A single, closed-ended framework no single view, but multiple
on political and economic possibilities with ecological
development modernization providing orientation

10
Source: Derived from Christoff (1996).

SEE ALSO: Environment and economy; Environment and the state; Environmental
governance; Environmental management; Environmental policy; Green capitalism; Green
transition; Modernity; Neo-liberalism and environment.

References and Further Readings

Bailey, I and Wilson G. (2009) Theorising transitional pathways in response to climate

change: technocentrism, ecocentrism, and the carbon economy, Environment and Planning A,
41: 2324-2341.

Bailey, I, Gouldson, A and Newell, P. (2011) Ecological modernisation and the governance
of carbon: A critical analysis, Antipode, 43(3): 682-703.

Christoff, P. (1996) Ecological modernisation, ecological modernities, Environmental

Politics, 5:476–500.

Curran, G. (2009) Ecological modernisation and climate change in Australia, Environmental

Politics, 18(2): 201-217.

Freeman, C. (1992) The economics of hope. London: Pinter.

Hajer, M. (1993) Discourse coalitions and the institutionalisation of practice: The case of acid
rain in Great Britain in F. Fischer and J. Forester (eds) The argumentative turn in policy
analysis and planning, Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 43–76.

Hajer, M. (1995) The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernisation and the
policy process. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press.

Hayter, R., and Le Heron, R. (2002) Conclusion: Institutions and innovation in territorial
perspective, in R. Hayter and R. Le Heron (eds) Knowledge, industry and environment,
Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 399–409.

Howes, M, McKenzie, M, Gleeson, B, Gray, R, Byrne, J and Daniels, P. (2010) Adapting

ecological modernisation to the Australian context, Journal of Integrative Environmental
Sciences, 7(1): 5-21.

Huber, J. (1982) Die verlorene unschuld der okologie [The lost innocence of ecology: New
technologies and superindustrialized development]. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Verlag.

Huber, J (1985) Die Regenbogengesellschaft: Ökologie und sozialpolitik [The Rainbow

Society: Ecology and social politics]. Frankfurt am Main: Fisher Verlag.

Hudson, R. (2000) Production, places and environment. Harlow, U.K.: Prentice Hall.

Hudson, R (2001) Producing places. New York: Guilford Press.

11
Jänicke, M. (1985) Preventive environmental policy as ecological modernisation and
structural policy. Discussion Paper IIUG dp 85-2, Internationales Institut Für Umwelt und
Gesellschaft, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin Für Sozialforschung (WZB).

Jepson, W, Brannstrom, C and de Souza, R S. (2005) A case of contested ecological

modernisation: the governance of genetically modified crops in Brazil, Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy, 23: 295-310.

Kotilainen, J, Tysiachniouk, M, Kuliasova, A, Kuliasov, I and Pchelkina, S. (2008) The

potential for ecological modernisation in Russia: scenarios from the forest industry,
Environmental Politics, 17(1): 58-77.

Lai, K-H, Christina W.Y. Wong, C W Y and Cheng, T C E. (2012) Ecological modernisation
of Chinese export manufacturing via green logistics management and its regional
implications, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 79: 766–770.

Long, D and Patel, Z. (2011) A new theory for an age-old problem: ecological modernisation
and the production of nuclear energy in South Africa, South African Geographical Journal,
93(2): 191-205.

Memon, P, Kirk, N and Selsky, J (2011) Limits to Ecological Modernisation as a framework

for sustainable fresh water governance, Land Use Policy, 28: 534–541.

Milanez, B and Bührs, T. (2008) Ecological modernisation beyond Western Europe: The case
of Brazil, Environmental Politics, 17(5): 784-803.

Mol, A and Spaargaren, G. (2000) Ecological modernisation theory in debate: A review, in

A. Mol and D. Sonnenfeld (eds) Ecological modernisation around the world: Perspectives
and critical debates, London: Frank Cass, 17–49

Mol, A., and Sonnenfeld, D. (2000) Ecological modernisation around the world:
Perspectives and critical debates. London: Frank Cass.

Scheinberg, A (2003) The proof of the pudding: Urban recycling in North America as a
process of ecological modernisation, Environmental Politics, 12(4): 49-75.

Schlosberg, D and Rinfret, S. (2008) Ecological modernisation, American style,

Environmental Politics, 17(2): 254-275.

Soyez, D. (2002) Environmental knowledge, the power of framing and industrial change, in
R. Hayter and R. Le Heron (eds) Knowledge, industry and environment, Aldershot, U.K.:
Ashgate, 187–208.

Spaargaren, G.; Mol, A.; and Buttel, F. (2000) Environment and global modernity. London:
Sage.

Key Words
Environmental policy; Environmental politics; Modernization; Sustainable development

12