Ecological Modernization Theory:What About Consumption?

Abstract

This article takes a critical look at ecological modernization, particularly in regard to its strong “productivist” orientation. The empirical and conceptual focus of ecological modernization is the problematization of production—namely, how things are produced. The question then becomes: Is the problematization of production, in itself, sufficient to render the question of (over)consumption irrelevant? I argue that it is not; a resolution to our global ecological problems can only be found in the problematization of both production and consumption. In presenting this argument, I focus extensively on two salient claims espoused by ecological modernization: (1) the achievement of super- (eco) efficiencies through a program of more production, and (2) its “dematerialization thesis.” This call for equal conceptual emphasis on both consumption and production presents ecological modernization with significant challenges: challenges that, if adequately addressed, will only further strengthen its prominence in the field.

Keywords:

• consumption
• ecological modernization theory
• growth
• industrialization
• production
• restraint

I thank Wageningen University and Arthur Mol for the generous fellowship during which time the first draft of this work was written. Thanks also to those in the Environmental Policy Group at Wageningen University for many stimulating conversations about ecological modernization theory. Thanks must also go out to the anonymous reviews for their constructively critical comments and insights. Finally, I thank Belinda Backous for having taken the time to read various earlier versions.

Notes

1 Spaargaren and Mol, working within a Giddensian (e.g., Giddens 1990) framework of modernity, see environmental problems as a problem of industrialism, not capitalism.

2 This op-ed piece by Professor Nering was brought to my attention through the book Confronting Consumption, by Princen, Maniates and Conca (2002).

3 This blindness toward production as consumption is not terribly surprising, however. With globalization, we are increasingly unaware of not only where our products are coming from, but also where they are going to once we tire of them (e.g., Manno 2002; Princen 2002). Princen (2002) and colleagues (Princen, Maniates and Conca 2002) refer to this phenomenon as “distancing”: the severing of ecological and social feedback along the commodity chain as points are increasingly separated along dimensions of geography, culture, agency, and power.

4 Some could suggest that what ecological modernization purports is the development of a more efficient consumer. Yet whether this translates into consumers who consume less because they can now fulfill needs and wants more efficiently, or consumers who can more efficiently consume and thus consume more, still needs to be debated.

5 Indeed, in some instances consequences of production/consumption are shrouded in mystery to even the so-called experts. Take, as an example, our limited knowledge toward endocrine disrupters. DDT, kepone, lindane, some PCB cogeners, several dioxins, cadmium, lead, mercury, alkyl phenols, and diethylstilbestrol, among others, have been cited for their effects on the physiological system (effects that are only beginning to be examined and understood) (Colborn, Dumanoski, and Myer 1996). And because they concern a highly complex physiological system, their full effects remain elusive, and probably will remain so for years.

6 A similar distinction has been made by Christoff (1996) in terms of “weak” (techno-corporatist, more conservative) and “strong” (democratic, reflexive, and more radical) variants of ecological modernization.