Ecological modernization

Ecological modernization is a school of thought in the social sciences that argues that the economy benefits from moves towards environmentalism. It has gained increasing attention among scholars and policymakers in the last several decades internationally. It is an analytical approach as well as a policy strategy and environmental discourse (Hajer, 1995).

Origins and key elements
Ecological modernization emerged in the early 1980s within a group of scholars at Free University and the Social Science Research Centre in Berlin, among them Joseph Huber, Martin Jänicke (de) and Udo E. Simonis (de). Various authors pursued similar ideas at the time, e.g. Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Amory Lovins, Donald Huisingh, René Kemp, or Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker. Further substantial contributions were made by Arthur P.J. Mol, Gert Spaargaren and David A Sonnenfeld (Mol and Sonnenfeld, 2000; Mol, 2001).

One basic assumption of ecological modernization relates to environmental readaptation of economic growth and industrial development. On the basis of enlightened self-interest, economy and ecology can be favourably combined: Environmental productivity, i.e. productive use of natural resources and environmental media (air, water, soil, ecosystems), can be a source of future growth and development in the same way as labour productivity and capital productivity. This includes increases in energy and resource efficiency as well as product and process innovations such as environmental management and sustainable supply chain management, clean technologies, benign substitution of hazardous substances, and product design for environment. Radical innovations in these fields can not only reduce quantities of resource turnover and emissions, but also change the quality or structure of the industrial metabolism. In the co-evolution of humans and nature, and in order to upgrade the environment’s carrying capacity, ecological modernization gives humans an active role to play, which may entail conflicts with nature conservation.

There are different understandings of the scope of ecological modernization – whether it is just about techno-industrial progress and related aspects of policy and economy, and to what extent it also includes cultural aspects (ecological modernization of mind, value orientiations, attitudes, behaviour and lifestyles). Similarly, there is some pluralism as to whether ecological modernization would need to rely mainly on government, or markets and entrepreneurship, or civil society, or some sort of multi-level governance combining the three. Some scholars explicitly refer to general modernization theory as well as non-Marxist world-system theory, others don’t.

Ultimately, however, there is a common understanding that ecological modernization will have to result in innovative structural change. So research is now still more focused on environmental innovations, or eco-innovations, and the interplay of various societal factors (scientific, economic, institutional, legal, political, cultural) which foster or hamper such innovations (Klemmer et al., 1999; Huber, 2004; Weber and Hemmelskamp, 2005; Olsthoorn and Wieczorek, 2006).

Ecological modernization shares a number of features with neighbouring, overlapping approaches. Among the most important are

the concept of sustainable development
the approach of industrial metabolism (Ayres and Simonis, 1994)
the concept of industrial ecology (Socolow, 1994).

The approach was developed in overcoming the earlier debate on the limits of growth in the “green” growth opponents and old industrial growth defenders blocked each other. Solutions were derived from ideas of organic growth (life cycle theories) and qualitative growth, Added to this was the idea that industrial development not only brings about typical social and ecological problems for the respective stage of development, but at the same time also opens up means and possibilities for successfully working on these problems in the course of further development. Social evolution is path-dependent. You can not reverse, stop or get out of modernization and industrialization history, but you can use remaining degrees of freedom in the pathway for ecological readjustment, using the resources of modern society, especially science and technology, and law and money renewed cultural and political content, especially environmental awareness, environmental ethics,Environmental policy and environment-oriented behaviors.

A central idea of ecological modernization is the scale-up of resources – and lowering – Productivitythat means the increasingly efficient and more natural use of raw materials, energy sources and environmental media (soil, water, air). Behind this was the environmental economic insight that ecology and economy need not be opposites. If economics applies the principles of good housekeeping to ecological aspects, in other words, incorporating environmental aspects into their production functions and calculations rather than fading them out (internalizing rather than externalizing), then greening does not impede further growth and progress, but becomes the basis for it, Accordingly, ecological modernization lies in the enlightened self-interest of Homo oeconomicus, Increasing environmental productivity will be just as much a source of profit as labor and capital productivity have been. This has also resulted in a seamless transition to the development of corporate environmental management systems.

From a technological point of view, the approach of ecological modernization has put priority on integrated environmental protection over downstream measures. Downstream measures (also referred to as end-of-pipe, downstream, additive) are, for example, exhaust air purification, wastewater treatment or waste incineration. On the other hand, integrated solutions were measures of recycling and of increasing efficiency at all, in particular material and energy efficiency, and above all, product and process innovations.

In the course of the 1980s-90s, a number of technological approaches were developed that each contribute in their own way to the ecological modernization of value chains: recycling, circular economy, industrial combined use of co-products and waste (industrial symbiosis); sustainable resource management; clean technologies (for example, hydro, wind, solar or hydrogen instead of fossil fuels); Substitution of pollutants (for example, solvents or heavy metals); resource-efficient and environmentally friendly product design; Bionics (developing products on the model of nature); advanced downstream technologies.

There is traditionally a tension between conservation and technical environmental protection. Ecological modernization is not a conservative nature conservation program that seeks to maintain or bring about a particular natural state. Nature knows no ideal archetype that could serve as an absolute reference state. There is only evolution that succeeds or does not succeed. Ecological modernization aims at a sustainable and sustainable co-evolution of man and nature, which includes an active use of the environment and thus also human environmental design.

Closer and more understanding
One can distinguish a closer, medium and comprehensive understanding of ecological modernization. All three are valid and compatible.

The narrower concept of ecological modernization is bringing it were an engineering and means existing product lines, industrial facilities and infrastructure up to date knowledge and technology, or indeed introduce new technologies that have better environmental performance than the previous state of knowledge and the Technology.

In an understanding of medium range includes ecological modernization additional legal and financial aspects, so an amendment of legal regulations and the modernization of institutions and professions as well as real economic and financial conditions. The institutions and instruments of state environmental policy be viewed here along with financing and market mechanisms as a control lever through which the greening of agriculture, energy and materials production, manufacturing goods, services and consumer behavior can be brought about.

Ecological modernization in a comprehensive sense also refers to wider social and humanities theory contexts. This includes cultural aspects such as the environment-related changes in the value base and beliefs, settings, depending on the level of development of life and milieu specific lifestyles, as well as processes of environmental communication and political opinion-forming. Here, social movements historically play a key role, most recently the New Social Movements, especially the environmental movement.

The relevant theoretical contexts include the following:

the historical-institutional modernization theory, in particular the cultural sociology after Max Weber, in the rationalization as a general development paradigm of modern society in all its sub-areas, or the theory of modern nation-state formation after Rokkan, or the theory of plural modernization processes after Eisenstadt. This also includes the theory of further modernization according to Zapf and Tyriakian. The concept of reflexive modernization according to Beck and Giddens is here also compatible, provided that this i. S. of a critically self-referential sequel, not interpreted as ending the progress story.
The materialistic modernization theory of Karl Marx, which focuses on the development of the productive forces and the associated relations of production, in connection with it also the world system theory after Wallerstein.
the economic modernization and innovation theory based on Kondratieff and Schumpeter.
Although the narrower and broader concepts of ecological modernization do not exclude each other, there are occasional barriers to understanding. For example, scientists and engineers typically misjudge the complexity of societal causalities that eventually lead to environmental impacts or environmental change. Conversely, social and humanities scholars often lack the knowledge and understanding of the key environmental function of technology and of industrial value chains.

According to authors of ecological modernization, environmental problems are disturbances of the geo-and biospheric metabolism between man and nature. Effectively, the metabolism is accomplished through material human activity, through material production and consumption, through labor, which is highly technologically transformed and potentiated work in modern society. The central role of technology in the approach of ecological modernization therefore does not stem from a technocratic or techno-mechanical attitude, but from the fact of the matter itself.

Additional elements
A special topic of ecological modernization research during recent years was sustainable household, i.e. environment-oriented reshaping of lifestyles, consumption patterns, and demand-pull control of supply chains (Vergragt, 2000; OECD 2002). Some scholars of ecological modernization share an interest in industrial symbiosis, i.e. inter-site recycling that helps to reduce the consumption of resources via increasing efficiency (i.e. pollution prevention, waste reduction), typically by taking externalities from one economic production process and using them as raw material inputs for another (Christoff, 1996). Ecological modernization also relies on product life-cycle assessment and the analysis of materials and energy flows. In this context, ecological modernization promotes ‘cradle to cradle’ manufacturing (Braungart and McDonough, 2002), contrasted against the usual ‘cradle to grave’ forms of manufacturing – where waste is not re-integrated back into the production process. Another special interest in the ecological modernization literature has been the role of social movements and the emergence of civil society as a key agent of change (Fisher and Freudenburg, 2001).

As a strategy of change, some forms of ecological modernization may be favored by business interests because they seemingly meet the triple bottom line of economics, society, and environment, which, it is held, underpin sustainability, yet do not challenge free market principles. This contrasts with many environmental movement perspectives, which regard free trade and its notion of business self-regulation as part of the problem, or even an origin of environmental degradation. Under ecological modernization, the state is seen in a variety of roles and capacities: as the enabler for markets that help produce the technological advances via competition; as the regulatory (see regulation) medium through which corporations are forced to ‘take back’ their various wastes and re-integrate them in some manner into the production of new goods and services (e.g. the way that car corporations in Germany are required to accept back cars they manufactured once those vehicles have reached the end of their product lifespan); and in some cases as an institution that is incapable of addressing critical local, national, and global environmental problems. In the latter case, ecological modernization shares with Ulrich Beck (1999, 37-40) and others notions of the necessity of emergence of new forms of environmental governance, sometimes referred to as subpolitics or political modernization, where the environmental movement, community groups, businesses, and other stakeholders increasingly take on direct and leadership roles in stimulating environmental transformation. Political modernization of this sort requires certain supporting norms and institutions such as a free, independent, or at least critical press, basic human rights of expression, organization, and assembly, etc. New media such as the Internet greatly facilitate this.

Role of companies, government and citizens
Companies
In ecological modernization, companies are partly responsible for solving environmental problems. This allows them to reduce their environmental impact through incremental improvements or radical innovations. This can be done by more efficient use of materials, energy, transport, space or better looking at the risks of processes, products or materials. Shifting ‘end-of-pipe’ techniques to ecological innovations of products and processes is an integral part of ecological modernization

Government
Both the government and the business sector have a major role in ecological modernization. According to Jänicke (2008), the government can stimulate innovation within the business community through intelligent environmental regulations. By introducing new regulations, new markets can be created or existing markets supported. Modern regulations allow a country to become an international trendsetter, so that companies that have anticipated this will receive a market advantage. Regulations can ensure an equal playing field; all participants must comply with the same rules. Spaargaren (2000) states that the government can direct people towards sustainable consumption by changing the organization of society.

Citizens
Within ecological modernization, citizens only have the role of consumer.

Advantages and disadvantages
Ecological modernization has several advantages:

It uses the market mechanism of continuous innovation to improve environmental quality
It is a positive mechanism
This fits in well with the current liberal capitalism

Although ecological modernization has great promises, ecological modernization also has disadvantages:

Ecological modernization is no solution for acute environmental problems.
Ecological modernization is not a solution for environmental problems for which there is not (yet) a market such as erosion, loss of biodiversity and permanent storage of nuclear waste.
Ecological modernization does not reduce continuous consumption. The theory does not stimulate the awareness of production and consumption limits, because it is assumed that there are solutions to the problems that they entail.
Ecological modernization is primarily a technological solution. It will pay little attention to people’s behavior. The question is whether technological solutions are sufficient to solve the environmental problems.
The assumption that the environmental problems can be resolved by means of limited changes within the current institutions is debatable, perhaps further changes are necessary.

Criticisms
Critics argue that ecological modernization will fail to protect the environment and does nothing to alter the impulses within the capitalist economic mode of production (see capitalism) that inevitably lead to environmental degradation (Foster, 2002). As such, it is just a form of ‘green-washing’. Critics question whether technological advances alone can achieve resource conservation and better environmental protection, particularly if left to business self-regulation practices (York and Rosa, 2003). For instance, many technological improvements are currently feasible but not widely utilized. The most environmentally friendly product or manufacturing process (which is often also the most economically efficient) is not always the one automatically chosen by self-regulating corporations (e.g. hydrogen or biofuel vs. peak oil). In addition, some critics have argued that ecological modernization does not redress gross injustices that are produced within the capitalist system, such as environmental racism – where people of color and low income earners bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harm such as pollution, and lack access to environmental benefits such as parks, and social justice issues such as eliminating unemployment (Bullard, 1993; Gleeson and Low, 1999; Harvey, 1996) – environmental racism is also referred to as issues of the asymmetric distribution of environmental resources and services (Everett & Neu, 2000). Moreover, the theory seems to have limited global efficacy, applying primarily to its countries of origin – Germany and the Netherlands, and having little to say about the developing world (Fisher and Freudenburg, 2001). Perhaps the harshest criticism though, is that ecological modernization is predicated upon the notion of ‘sustainable growth’, and in reality this is not possible because growth entails the consumption of natural and human capital at great costs to ecosystems and societies.

Ecological modernization, its effectiveness and applicability, strengths and limitations, remains a dynamic and contentious area of environmental social science research and policy discourse in the early 21st century.

Related Concepts

Societal metabolism
An important analytical basis for processes of ecological modernization became, in the 1990s, the model of industrial metabolism according to Robert Ayres and the social metabolism according to Marina Fischer-Kowalski. This in turn links the research directions of the life cycle assessment (LCA) and the material and energy flow analyzes.

One can also trace this strand of research back to Karl Marx, who in turn linked up with William Petty: The earth is the mother, the work the father of social production, indissolubly interconnected in the necessity of the metabolism between man and nature. The social anthropology of Cultural Ecology as well as of Cultural Materialism, according to Marvin Harris, has recently been linked to thison: The level of development of cultures is determined by the level of development of their productive forces (technologies, forms of communication and organization). This applies to primitive as well as traditional and modern societies. Those with the higher levels of productivity are the superior ones who survive in the long run if any existing competitor populations because their productive forces allow better use of resources and sinks, increasing the ecological carrying capacity of their habitat. Cultures that undermine the ecological carrying capacity of their environment are lost.

Sustainable Development and Environmental Innovations
After precursors in the field of eighteenth-century forestry science, the concept of sustainable development from 1987 (Brundtland Report) and the decisions of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (“Rio Environment Summit”) in 1992 became a global model of a global, environmentally and socially responsible development. Sustainable development is normatively defined on the basis of a “magic triangle”: further industrial development should be achieved together with its environmental and social compatibility, and in the long run, so that future generations should not be worse off than those now living.
Comparing the approaches of sustainable development and ecological modernization, there is a certain overlap. In this respect, there are two intertwined discursive strands. Through individual European members of the Rio-preparatory Brundtland Commission, core aspects of ecological modernization have been incorporated into the concept of sustainable development. The direction of Ecological Economics also exerted a strong influence. You could say that ecological modernization is a strategy, probably the main strategy for achieving the environmental goals of sustainable development.

Since Rio, discussions have begun on whether environmental sustainability can be achieved through sufficiency or efficiency. Sufficiency here means a strategy of frugality, voluntary renunciation of consumption or the legally prescribed allocation of resource consumption and environmental pollution. Such a perspective has been taken mainly by non-governmental organizations. In contrast, the strategy of increasing technological efficiency was the starting point for the industrial and financial world.

However, both approaches are against the fact that they are in some respects too short. The ideals of a frugal way of life (sufficiency) find a certain rhetorical approval among educated citizens. However, culturally and politically, they are incompatible in the vast majority of the population, and certainly not in emerging and developing countries. In addition, a mere quantitative reduction of environmental pressures, while a temporary shift in given limits to growth, does not mean a structural upgrading of ecological carrying capacity.

In the same way, this also applies to a strategy of increasing efficiency, which aims to reduce resource and sink inputs. In addition, increasing efficiency can mean progress on the wrong object. If, for example, combustion technologies with fossil fuels per se are ecologically unsustainable in the long term, it makes only limited sense to burn more efficiently (example 3-liter car). Rather, it is important to introduce new drive systems for vehicles (for example, electric motors powered by fuel cells or clean electricity from the socket).

Above all, the advocates of an efficiency strategy misjudged the actual function of increasing efficiency as it goes through learning curves: efficiency enhancement is a developmental mechanism in the lifecycle of systems to stabilize and continue their growth to the lifecycle path-dependent achievement of a conservation state. This results in a rebound effect, meaning that reduced input requirements are not translated into less output, but more output is generated from the same amount of input (eg, cars with larger engines that drive more kilometers, thus expanding the range of action and more) Traffic).

It was therefore necessary, in the discourse on sustainability, to emphasize much more explicitly than hitherto a strategy of fundamental innovations, so-called structural or systemic innovations, according to Schumpeter, also basic innovation (technology) or English. called radical innovation. These are less aimed at incrementally developing older systems (incremental process model)), but above all to replace new, ecologically better adapted systems in place of old ones. From the very beginning, such an innovation strategy has a priority in the approach of ecological modernization. Thus, the strategy of merely increasing efficiency in the mid-1990s was to be supplemented with the strategy of improving ecological consistency, also called metabolic consistency. Eco-effectiveness, through technological environmental innovations that change the quality of industrial metabolism so that it remains sustainable in large volumes (Huber 2004, Braungart / McDonough 2002).

In the past few years, this impulse has flowed into the new research and discourse strand of environmental innovations. In this sense, the discourse on ecological modernization is continued today, above all, as an environmental innovation discourse (Klemmer / Lehr / Löbbe 1999, Weber / Hemmelskamp 2005, Olsthoorn / Wieczorek 2006).

Industrial ecology
The direction of Industrial Ecology was formed in the United States in the early 1990s (see Socolow 1994). Here, too, it is an analytical approach to research as well as a strategic design approach, with the aim of placing the relationship between nature and society on a sustainable basis by means of technological-industrial innovations and reorganizations. That’s why industrial ecology is about the same as ecological modernization. In fact, these are two different names rather than two different paradigms. Nevertheless, characteristic differences can be identified:

The approach of ecological modernization developed in Europe from German-speaking countries and the Netherlands. The direction of industrial ecology is located in the USA. The second difference is that in America engineers and economists in particular came together in this field of research, whereas in Europe, political scientists, sociologists, historians, philosophers, educators and psychologists played a not inconsiderable role beyond this group of people. This results in a third difference concerning a closer or further understanding of the subject. American Industrial Ecology is characterized by a narrower economic and engineering understanding of its subject.Product life cycle) and an ecological consideration of value chains, chain management. These things are equally important in European research and discussion on ecological modernization and environmental innovation, but in addition, political-institutional, social, and cultural aspects continue to attract attention.

Source from Wikipedia