Ecological Modernization Theory: Taking Stock, Moving Forward1

Arthur P.J. Mol, Gert Spaargaren, and David A. Sonnenfeld

In: S. Lockie, D.A. Sonnenfeld and D. Fisher (Eds), Handbook of Environmental Sociology, London:
Routledge, pp.15-30

With the rebirth of environmental concern among social scientists in the 1960s and 1970s,
scholars initially were preoccupied with explaining environmental devastation. Their central
concern was how human behaviour, capitalist institutions, a culture of mass consumption,
failing governments and states, and industrial and technological developments, among others,
contributed to the ongoing deterioration of the physical environment. In the 1970s and 1980s,
with environmental problems manifesting themselves on a worldwide scale, there were many
reasons to look for explanations of the widening and deepening environmental crises. The
result was an expansive literature – both theoretical and empirical in nature – on the main
causes of continued environmental deterioration. Various disciplines and schools of thought
emphasised different structural, institutional and behavioural traits as the fundamental origins
and causes of the environmental crisis.
Beginning in the 1980s and maturing in the 1990s, attention in environmental sociology
and environmental politics started to widen, focusing not only on environmental deterioration
as the variable to be explained, but also on environmental reform. This led to what sociologist
Frederick Buttel (2003) labelled the sociology or social sciences of environmental reform.
Strongly driven by empirical and ideological developments in the European environmental
movement, by practices and institutional developments in some ‘environmental frontrunner
states’, and developments in private companies, some European social scientists began
reorienting their focus from explaining ongoing environmental devastation towards
understanding processes and outcomes of environmental reform. Later, and sometimes less
strongly, this new environmental social science agenda was followed by US and other non-
European scholars and policy analysts. By the turn of the millennium, this focus on
understanding and explaining environmental reform had become mainstream, not so much
instead of but, rather, as a complement to studies on environmental deterioration.
Within the ‘social sciences of environmental reform’, ecological modernization stands
out as one of the strongest, well-known, most used and widely-cited, and constantly debated
concepts. The notion of ecological modernization may be defined as the social scientific
interpretation of environmental reform processes at multiple scales in the contemporary
world. As a still young but growing body of scholarship, ecological modernization studies
reflect on how various institutions and social actors attempt to integrate environmental
concerns into their everyday functioning, development, and relations with others and the
natural world.
From the launching of the term by Martin Jänicke and Joseph Huber around 1980, and
its explicit foundation into social theory by Arthur Mol and Gert Spaargaren around 1990,
ecological modernization has been applied around the world in empirical studies, has been at
the forefront in theoretical debates, and even has been used by politicians to frame
environmental reform programs in, among others, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and
China. There is now wide interest and research in ecological modernization throughout the
world, including Asia (Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and especially China),
North America, Australia and New Zealand, Latin America (Argentina, Peru, Chile and
especially Brazil), as well as elsewhere on the wider European continent (including Russia).
After three decades of scholarship, quite a number of volumes have been published on
ecological modernization (cf. Mol and Sonnenfeld 2000; Young 2001; Barrett 2005; Mol et
al. 2009).
In this chapter, we aim to take stock of the vital and still-developing body of literature
on ecological modernization and suggest directions for continued advancement of this school
of thought. What have been the key accomplishments of ecological modernization studies to
date? The critical debates involving ecological modernization theory until now? What should
the research agenda be for ecological modernization studies in the new millennium? These
questions are given centre stage in this chapter. First, we draw up the balance of three decades
of ecological modernization theorising and empirical studies, assessing its achievements in
terms of its key academic contributions and societal impacts. Second, we examine the various
debates and criticisms that ecological modernization has been engaged in and sometimes has
triggered in its still relatively short history. Third, and finally, these assessments are drawn
upon to suggest elements of a research agenda for future ecological modernization
scholarship.

Taking stock of ecological modernization studies

When ecological modernization research started to gain firm ground in the environmental
social sciences from the mid-1980s onwards, scholars in environmental sociology, political
sciences, human geography and related fields still were solidly dominated by frames and
traditions for investigating and explaining environmental crises. Such scholars mainly
focused their investigations on ‘the roots of the environmental crisis’, as David Pepper (1984)
so adequately summarized. And, of course, good reasons existed for such a preoccupation.
After a period of rapid environmental capacity building in OECD countries in the first half of
the 1970s, environmental policymaking and implementation – especially at the national level
– stagnated, and the failure of governments to adequately address contemporary
environmental problems was widely perceived as a dominant trend (Jänicke 1986). Moreover,
most private firms were reluctant to take environmental responsibilities on board. Only
continuous and strong (societal and state) pressure resulted in what were still often minimal
environmental improvements. Finally, the environmental movement in many countries was
internally-focussed and divided over strategy. After the heydays of the early 1970s and their
radicalization at the end of that decade, environmental movements struggled between
grassroots radicalism and professional lobbyism (see Gottlieb 1993), and were confronted
with less favourable (and sometimes even hostile; e.g. UK and US) administrations.2 It should
not come as a surprise, therefore, that the social, political, economic and environmental
conditions of the time were reflected in environmental social scientists preoccupation with
analysing the poor environmental records of modern societies and institutions.
Although rooted in the environmental conditions of the time, the overall critical and
pessimistic outlook of environmental social scientists in the late 1970s and early 80s was
shaped as well by factors internal to the environmental social science disciplines. While
ecological economists established relationships with policymakers at an early stage in the
development of their discipline, in the 1970s and 80s environmental sociologists, political
scientists and human geographers were internally divided, inwardly directed, and very much
involved in (neo) Marxist debates over the roots of environmental degradation. The
structuralist argument that genuine environmental improvements are impossible whilever the
main institutions of capitalism remain in place had (and continues to have) a strong resonance
in the environmental social sciences (Schnaiberg 1980; Pepper 1984, 1999; Dickens 1991;
Dobson 1990).
Against this background, ecological modernization scholars made important
contributions to social theory through the development of a systematic theory of institutional
environmental reform; the introduction of a variety of theoretical innovations on the relation
between society and the natural environment; the elaboration of new approaches in
environmental policy and practice; and contributions to the ‘globalization’ of general social
theory.

A new emphasis: analysing and co-constructing environmental reform

The first, and arguably most important, contribution of ecological modernization research has
been to open up, diversify and provide a systematic theoretical framework for integrating
social science scholarship and policy perspectives on the ways in which contemporary
societies interact and deal with their biophysical environments. Interpreting, explaining and
theorizing the social processes and dynamics of environmental reform were key scientific
innovations resulting in the initiation of a new field of study complete with its own research
agenda, themes and concepts. Previously, there had been fragmented (especially policy,
business, and economic) studies of successful environmental policymaking, of the
development of environmental technologies, and of proactive firm behaviour – to name a few
key ecological modernization subjects. With its emergence, the ecological modernization
frame provided a basis for bringing these disparate studies together into a more-or-less
coherent body of knowledge that has had an enduring impact on environment-oriented studies
across the social sciences.
The endeavour of advancing a scientific and policy framework for environmental
reform resulted at times in strong academic reactions and criticisms. Most scholars would
accept the fact that individual, ad hoc cases of successful environmental reform can exist even
in an overall destructive late-modern, capitalist-industrialist society. However, arguing that
these exceptions might exemplify or foreshadow something of a general (green) rule with
respect to the fragmented but ongoing institutionalization of environmental concerns is a
different story. When the dominant view in the discipline refers to the impossibility of major
environmental improvements under conditions of modernity, an eco-modernist perspective
that used the mounting case-studies of environmental reform to argue that late-modern
capitalist-industrialist societies could, in the end, be environmentally reformed was bound to
yield major criticisms. Hence, ecological modernization – whether framed as an academic
social theory or as a political program for politicians and environmental NGOs – remains
under strong debate and accusations of various kinds (see next section).
With hindsight, it can be concluded that ecological modernization scholars were timely
in formulating a new perspective which has become mainstream in policymaking circles and
well-accepted in the social sciences. What started to develop was a new branch of scholarship:
the social sciences of environmental reform. Theories and methods of environmental change
were developed in close interaction with and reflecting upon major developments in the
environmental discourse during the late 1980s and early- to mid-1990s. Among the major
events and dynamics were the publication of the Brundtland report (WCED 1987); the wave
of international environmental treaties being negotiated and signed; the successful UNCED
conference in Rio in 1992; the formation of environmental ministries, laws and policies in
most developing countries from the late 1980s onwards (cf. Sonnenfeld and Mol 2006); the
worldwide spread of the awareness of environmental risks among major parts of the
population; and a resurgence in environmental activism (cf. Sonnenfeld 2002).
From the mid-1980s, ecological modernization scholarship helped to promote new
societal roles and orientations for the environmental social sciences while contributing
significantly to a broad reworking of the theoretical landscape in sociology, political science,
human geography, business studies and other fields. This reorientation has resulted in, among
other things, a (positive) re-evaluation of modernization theories, especially in their ‘reflexive
forms’ as suggested by Anthony Giddens (1990) and Ulrich Beck (Beck et al. 1994), and a
diminishing (or less exclusive) influence of neo-Marxism in the environmental social sciences
(Mol 2006). Building upon the reflexive modernization theories of Giddens and Beck,
ecological modernization scholarship was instrumental for social scientists and policymakers
when trying to move beyond the 1980s debate over whether capitalism (Marxism) or
industrialism/technology (industrial society theory) should be regarded as the most important
driver of environmental degradation (Mol 1995).

Conceptual and theoretical innovations

A second major contribution of ecological modernization scholarship is to be found in the

introduction of a variety of innovative concepts, theoretical notions and major research
themes into social theory. They include, amongst others, the notion of emerging processes of
ecological rationalization (akin to, but different from, Weber’s idea of institutional
rationalization); the notion of political modernization catalysed by civic and institutional
environmental response and interaction; the incorporation of market dynamics, market actors
and market-based instruments into environmental policymaking and practice. We shortly
elaborate on the three innovations in what follows.
At the heart of the theory is the understanding of ecological modernization as a process
of differentiation – and ‘emancipation’ – of an ecological sphere and the concomitant
articulation of an independent ecological rationality (cf. Spaargaren and Mol 1992; Mol 1995;
Dryzek 1987). This conceptual move brings a number of different developments under one
common denominator and makes room for the environment in more general social theories.3
 Another major conceptual innovation is to be found in the introduction of, and the
ensuing debate on, the concept of ‘political modernization’ (cf. Jänicke 1993; Mez and
Weidner 1997; Van Tatenhove et al. 2000, 2003). Political modernization refers to the
renovation and reinvention of state environmental policies and politics in order to make
environmental reform better adapted to the new conditions of late-modern societies. The
debate on political modernization within environmental politics can be seen as an early
formulation of themes and basic ideas of environmental governance. Moreover, the concept of
political modernization connected ideas on innovative governance in a direct and explicit way
with (the management of) environmental change. The notion of political modernization
already included ideas of multiple actors and multi-level governance and made room for
various modes of steering and policymaking applied by different actors outside the framework
of national environmental governments. As a further specific example of conceptual
innovation in this respect we can refer to the notion of ‘environmental capacity’ as it has been
developed within the ecological modernization school of thought by the group around Martin
Jänicke in Germany (e.g. Jänicke 1995).
In developing their ideas on political modernization and environmental governance,
ecological modernization scholars have been innovative in allowing economic categories and
concepts to enter theories of environmental reform. Of course, this emphasis on the
importance of economic/market-based concepts and schemes for environmental policymaking
– in particular for technology-policies and for the management of production-consumption
chains and networks – was not unique for ecological modernization scholars. In this respect, a
number of ideas were borrowed from environmental and ecological economics in particular.
From the 1980s onwards, environmental/ecological economists contributed significantly to
the development of (eco)economic valuation models, criteria and theories which were used to
‘internalize externalities’. When applied by ecological modernization scholars, this process
was referred to as the ‘economizing of ecology’ and the ‘ecologizing of the economy’ (Huber
1982).
Nowadays, environmental governance scholars from various perspectives acknowledge
the crucial role of economic actors and instruments in environmental policymaking. In an
early phase of the debate on economic instruments in environmental policy, ecological
modernization scholars made significant contributions to the literature in two respects. First,
they brought many of the market and monetary dynamics – such as eco-taxes, environmental
auditing, corporate environmental management, green consumerism, valuing environmental
goods, annual environmental reports, environmental insurances, green niche markets, green
branding and eco-labelling, etc. – together in a coherent broader framework. Second,
ecological modernization scholars interpreted these market and monetary developments in
terms of a redefinition of the role of states and markets in environmental reform, moving
away from the basic idea of a monopoly of state authority on the protection of public goods.
With the help of this broader framework of new relationships between private firms, states,
and civil society actors and organizations, it became possible to move beyond narrow
economic, neo-liberal frameworks for understanding the role of privatization, marketization
and liberalization in environmental politics while, at the same time, being able to understand
better the new roles in environmental governance assigned to environmental movements and
to citizen-consumers (cf. Sonnenfeld 2002; Spaargaren and Mol 2008).
 Next to these primary theoretical contributions, ecological modernization scholars have
also been recognized for a number of models, concepts and approaches that, while not
exclusive to ecological modernization research, have been developed in collaboration with
colleagues in other fields. This includes: the application and elaboration within environmental
political sciences of discourse analyses (Weale 1992; Hajer 1995, 1996); major contributions
to the field of technology studies and to environmental technologies in particular (Huber 1982
1989, 2004; Sonnenfeld 2002); the elaboration and extensive empirical use of the triad
network model (Mol 1995); the application of the core concepts of risk and trust, especially in
the context of the globalization of production and consumption (Cohen 1997; Oosterveer
2007); the elaboration of the social practices model, especially in the field of sustainable
consumption (Spaargaren 2003, 2011); the first outline of an environmental sociology of
networks and flows (Spaargaren et al. 2006); and the analyses of the emerging role of what is
now labelled informational governance (Kleindorfer and Orts 1999; Heinonen et al. 2001; van
den Burg 2006; Mol 2008).

Contributions to environmental politics and management

While the core of ecological modernization studies remains academic in outlook, most
scholars in this tradition have engaged themselves with applied, policy-relevant studies as
well, moving beyond ‘ivory tower’ criticism of contemporary developments. Through their
applied research, they have engaged with environmental politics and practices; they have
joined discussions and planning sessions with environmental NGOs on their position, strategy,
alliances and priorities (cf. Smith et al. 2006); and they have involved themselves with
business (associations) in designing pro-active strategies and in exploring niche market
developments. We would thus argue that the third category of major contributions of
ecological modernization is its substantial contributions to studies of environmental politics
and management. These contributions are the direct result of the explicit and sustained focus
on major innovations in environmental policy and practice. The fact that governmental
administrations, political parties, as well as environmental movements have used the notion of
ecological modernization to refer to their main aims and strategies is indicative of the
‘practical’ proliferation of ecological modernization ideas. At the same time, it gives evidence
of the fact that in today’s reflexively modern world, academic concepts are spiralling in and
out of environmental governance practices more frequently and at an ever-faster pace. A
range of empirical studies on concrete processes of ecological modernization have found – to
varying degrees – their way into environmental policies and management. Hence, ecological
modernization studies very often give witness of the mutual influence between theoretical
models and concepts, on the one hand, and empirical developments and practices in society,
on the other. This fact has resulted in the frequent intermingling of the often-quoted two sides
of ecological modernization: the academic/analytical theory and the
normative/prescriptive/policy-oriented model of environmental change.

Globalization and environment

A fourth key contribution of ecological modernization scholars is their encouragement of and
significant contributions to globalization theory and research in the environmental social
sciences. While, in the 21st century, more and more social science research moves beyond the
‘nation-state container’ (Beck 2005), this was not true in the 1980s and most of the 1990s.
Several factors can explain the early internationalization of ecological modernization research
and the explicit comparative perspective used to study processes of environmental change.
For one, the object of study meant that environmental studies were leading in
internationalization within the social sciences. Cross-border problems and – especially in the
1990s – growing international efforts and coordination for solving environmental problems
triggered this international and global outlook. More specifically for ecological modernization,
scholars’ need to learn from (successful) environmental reform practices and developments in
different countries spurred comparative research both within Europe and between different
regions in the world economy. The fact that ecological modernization emerged in Europe
contributed to an early international outlook of ecological modernization. Hence, comparative
and international studies are well represented in the ecological modernization research
tradition (see for some early examples Jänicke 1990; Weale 1992; Liefferink et al 1993;
Anderson 1994), and ecological modernization scholars have contributed significantly to
international, comparative and global social science research on the environment.
Ecological modernization scholars have also been productive in bringing the environment
into globalization studies through a number of books and special issues (see Spaargaren et al
2000; Mol 2001; Sonnenfeld and Mol 2006; Spaargaren et al. 2006; Sonnenfeld 2008;
Sonnenfeld and Mol 2011). These studies helped develop a more balanced interpretation of
how globalization dynamics affect the environment, while contributing as well to the analysis
and conceptual understanding of globalisation with respect to environmental change.
Taken together, the four contributions to social theory make a positive balance for
ecological modernization as a recently established school of thought within the environmental
social sciences. Individually, many of these achievements are not unique or exclusive to
ecological modernization studies. Taken as a whole, however, they represent the distinct
approach, coherent perspective and active research program of ecological modernization
theory. In the course of three decades, steadily accumulating scholarship in this school of
thought managed to contribute to an increased commitment across the social sciences with
understanding and facilitating social and institutional change related to the environment,
natural resources and climate change worldwide.

Critical debates on ecological modernization

From its inception, ecological modernization theory has met considerable opposition. The
critiques have become more frequent and fierce, however, with its growing recognition,
popularity and acceptance, together with its widening geographical scope of application and
its profound policy impact. The fiercest debates relate to its positive commitment to
environmental reform under conditions of modernity. As scientific researchers and policy
analysts of institutional and cultural environmental reform worldwide, ecological
modernization scholars have been characterized as being theoretically mistaken (Blühdorn
2000), Eurocentric (Mol 1995), politically naïve (Hobson 2002), empirically wrong
(Weinberg et al. 2000), blind to issues related to consumption (Carolan 2004) and social
inequality (Harvey 1996), ‘colonised by the economic and cultural system’ (Jamison 2001: 4),
and even ‘cursed with an unflappable sense of technological optimism’ (Hannigan 2006: 26).
For those active in social scientific disciplines and fields of study, which have been
preoccupied for decades now with explaining the sources and continuity of environmental
crises and deterioration, one should perhaps not be surprised when meeting views of this kind.
Instead, well-formulated scientific critiques can and must be used to develop a more deeply
nuanced understanding of key assumptions and notions. Debates on ecological modernization
theory over the last two decades have been summarized and reviewed in various publications
(cf. Mol 1995; Christoff 1997; Mol and Spaargaren 2000; York and Rosa 2003; Carolan
2004; Mol and Spaargaren 2004). Here, we briefly address critiques that have been of
strategic relevance to ecological modernization scholarship. We start by discussing some of
the more well known earlier perspectives that have been reflexively addressed and
incorporated into more recent formulations of ecological modernization theory. Second, we
review a number of critical views that are difficult or impossible to address within the basic
framework and understandings of ecological modernization theory.

Critiques that have been addressed over the course of time

In response to perspectives and formulations common in early ecological modernization

studies, critics raised a number of objections or limitations of this new approach. These
included arguments about ecological modernization theory’s shortcomings with respect to
technological determinism, its focus on production processes and consequent neglect of
practices of consumption, its lack of analyses of social inequality and power and its
Eurocentric outlook. Since then, critiques on these topics have been acknowledged, the
theoretical approach has been revised and strengthened and new studies have been
undertaken. Comments on the Eurocentric outlook, for example, have resulted in studies of
ecological modernization outside of north-western Europe; for instance on the North
American continent and Australia/ New Zealand, but also in Asia and Latin America (Mol et
al. 2009).
Criticisms of ecological modernization theory’s technocratic outlook and the ring of
technological determinism attached to earlier formulations have resulted in a refinement of
ecological modernization perspectives with respect to the role of technology in bringing about
social change and environmental reform. This approach is complicated, as well, by a growing
diversity of perspectives within ecological modernization theory reflecting, for example,
different evaluations by ecological modernization theorists of (environmental) technologies as
driving forces for environmental change.4 Such intellectual diversity notwithstanding, most
ecological modernization studies within environmental sociology, political science and human
geography today have become sensitive and reflexive with respect to the role of technology in
environmental change. Using the work of Beck (1986, 1992) on science and risk, Giddens
(1990, 1991) on trust and abstract systems, and responding to ideas from Actor-Network
Theory (Latour 1993; Urry 2000) and science and technology studies (Schot 1992; Geels
2005; Shove 2003), ecological modernization theorists today have made strong contributions
to a more reflexive stance on the use and role of environmental technologies in environmental
policy. Mol et al. (2009) provide recent documentation of the changing role of technology in
ecological modernization studies.
The critique of early ecological modernization theory’s relative neglect of social
inequality and issues of power has become a focus of more recent scholarship as well. The
inclusion of such themes as inequality and green trade (Oosterveer 2007), green consumption
as a ‘western’ phenomenon (Spaargaren and van Koppen 2010), power and inequality related
to environmental and informational flows (Mol 2008), the differential effects of stringent
environmental policies and the unequal distribution of environmental risks (Smith et al.
2006), all bear witness to the active involvement of ecological modernization scholars with
the themes of power and inequality, especially at global, regional and international levels of
analysis. Against this background, we would argue that contemporary criticisms of ecological
modernization theory focusing on the issues discussed above are seriously out of date.

Lasting controversies

Several critiques of the ecological modernization perspective find their origin in radically
different paradigms and approaches to the theme of late modernity, social change and
environmental sustainability. Because these approaches have fundamentally different starting
positions, assumptions and world views, it is far from easy to incorporate them into the
ecological modernization framework, or vice versa. As a result, some of the controversies and
debates with respect to these frameworks, and the theory itself, will endure with little near-
term prospect of reconciliation, agreement or synthesis. Three rival social theories of the
environment fall into this category: those rooted in neo-Marxism, radical or deep ecology and
structural human ecology/neo-Malthusianism.
As noted above, neo-Marxist perspectives on contemporary societies and the natural
environment were dominant in some parts of the world in the late 20th century. These embrace
several strands including the ‘treadmill of production’ perspective by Allan Schnaiberg and
colleagues (Schnaiberg et al 2002; Pellow et al. 2000; Weinberg et al. 2000); environmental
sociologists and others working within the world-systems theory perspective, identified with
the online Journal of World-Systems Theory; the eco-socialist perspective of James
O’Connor, Michael Goldman, Patrick Bond, and others associated with the journal,
Capitalism, Nature, Socialism; and the more structural Marxist perspective of John Bellamy
Foster and others associated with Monthly Review.
All emphasise and prioritize the fundamental continuity of the (global) capitalist order,
which disallows meaningful and enduring structural environmental reform in contemporary,
market-oriented societies. Whether in the form of the treadmill of production (Gould et al.
2008), the second contradiction of capital (O’Connor 1997) or any other conceptualization,
the fundamental criticism remains essentially the same: environmental conditions continue to
deteriorate everywhere to the point of global and local crises; enduring, effective structural
environmental reform is impossible in (increasingly globalized) capitalist societies. The basic
notion of ecological modernization processes aimed at ‘repairing one of the crucial design
faults of modernity’ is held to be theoretically impossible.
Such debates are sometimes heated, but can also be productive. The enduring
confrontation between neo-Marxism and ecological modernization theory has been fruitful in
clarifying the fundamental differences between the perspectives (cf. the contributions in Mol
and Buttel 2002; Harvey 1996). The interrelation between environmental and social
exploitation and degradation has been a key thread in such debates. Basic differences
notwithstanding, periodic attempts have been made to find common ground and enjoin
theoretical and empirical challenges (see Fisher 2002; Spaargaren et al. 2006; Mol 2011). At
the same time, some empirical studies have tried to use both perspectives in a complementary
rather than mutually exclusive way (Smith et al. 2006; Wilson 2002; Lang 2002).
Other scholars inspired by a variety of radical or deep ecology values and informed by
discursive, neo-institutional theories of political change are sceptical of what they see as the
reformist agenda of ecological modernization. They view ecological modernization theory as
an élite-centred approach to reform resulting in ‘light-green’, superficial forms of social and
environmental change. Against the ‘pragmatic’ outlook of ecological modernization theorists,
such radical and deep ecologists argue instead for more fundamental, or ‘dark-green’, forms
of institutional and especially bottom-up political change in order to bring contemporary
societies beyond the political structures of late modernity and into more ecologically
sustainable social relations and institutional configurations. Whether eco-feminist, socialist,
post-modernist or anarchist, the alternatives put forward by such scholars keep (considerable)
distance between the ideal, arguably utopian, green futures on the one hand and what in
principle can, or has already been, realised in terms of environmental reform so far on the
other. Among others, Andrew Dobson (1990), John Barry (1999), Robyn Eckersley (1992
2004) and John Dryzek (1987) in political science; and Tom Princen (Princen et al. 2002),
Mikko Jalas (2006) and Kerstin Hobson (2002) in the field of consumption studies all
represent mild or strong versions of ‘deep green’/ discursive thinking as suggested here.
Radical ecologists’ positions continue to evolve, importantly. Christoff (1997), for
example, has attempted to build constructively on the controversy described here by
distinguishing different (green) shades of ecological modernization. He argues that the Beck-
and Giddens-inspired variants of (reflexive) ecological modernization could be further
developed into ‘strong versions’ of ecological modernization theory. Mol and Spaargaren
(2000) aimed to contribute to this debate, as well, distinguishing between ‘green radicalism’
positions on the one hand and ‘socio-economic radicalism’ on the other, thereby creating
conceptual space for a debate on discrete forms of radicalism within eco-modernization
perspectives. Despite these efforts, radical or deep-ecology inspired schools of thought do not
easily mix-and-match with ecological modernization ideas. In addition to disagreement on the
desired pace and scope of environmental change, the perceived ‘anthropocentric outlook’
(Eckersley 1992) of many ecological modernization studies also seems to contribute to a
continued divide.
Structural human ecologists inspired, in part, by neo-Malthusian notions of
overpopulation and absolute natural limits have aimed to quantify cross-national
environmental impacts and mathematically relate them to a variety of anthropogenic drivers.
Eugene Rosa, Thomas Dietz and Richard York are the most visible representatives of this
stream of thinking (York and Rosa 2003; York et al. 2003). Inspired as well by Wackernagel
and Rees’ (1998) ‘ecological footprint’ analyses, and natural science based historical
interpretations of human-society metabolism (Fisher-Kowalski 1997), structural human
ecologists have concluded that, due to increased affluence and growing population,
environmental impacts are only increasing as eco-technological development cannot keep
pace with the former two causes. From this, they challenge ecological modernization theory
since ‘historical patterns of modernization and economic development have clearly led to
increased pressure on the global environment’ rather than to effective environmental reforms
(York et al 2003: 44-45). Structural human ecology/neo-Malthusian perspectives diverge
significantly from ecological modernization theory in that the former are highly abstract
rather than richly particular; are structurally deterministic rather than reflexive and change-
oriented; and are profoundly pessimistic rather than opening up windows to institutional and
cultural environmental change.
All three ‘competing’ schools of social theory criticize ecological modernization studies
as: (1) being one-sided in focusing only on environmental reform; (2) utilizing non-
representative case studies rather than cross-national, statistical analyses based on large data-
sets; (3) not addressing the basic, structural drivers behind environmental degradation; and for
that reason, (4) being overly optimistic naïve about the potential for environmental change
and sustainable development. When related back to the basic starting points and premises
characteristic of these schools of thought, the points raised in debate with ecological
modernization are usually internally logical and coherent. Since disagreements tend to go
back to fundamental assumptions – on science, its role in society, the relationship between
theoretical and empirical work, and the present state of the world – we expect such
controversies to be long-lasting.
While ecological modernization scholars acknowledge that environmental deterioration
continues forcefully and widely, at the same time they find much evidence of significant
environmental reform around the world. Among the paradigmatic assumptions of ecological
modernization is the contention that scientific efforts to identify, analyse, understand and
design new, more environmentally friendly and sustainable sociotechnical systems,
institutions, policy arrangements and social relations are not only of key academic importance
in themselves, but are central also to the identification and understanding of structural,
anthropogenic drivers of environmental decay.

Moving forward: future directions

Ecological modernization has moved from a peripheral position in both the environmental
social sciences and the general social sciences to an acknowledged school of thought in this
new millennium. Yet much work remains to be done in order to understand the extent to
which environmental interests are included in all kinds of economic, cultural and political
practices and institutional developments, and the success of these, at different levels,
geographies and time frames. The need for a wide variety of theoretically-informed empirical
studies – quantitative, qualitative, comparative, longitudinal etc5 – remains high and will be
an important part of the future research profile of ecological modernization. The last section
of this chapter focuses on three areas within the broad scope of ecological modernization
Theory that we believe are ripe for further study: extending the geography of ecological
modernization studies; studying the environmental reform of global flows; and focusing on
cultural dimensions of ecological modernization.
The extended geographical scope of ecological modernization studies

As mentioned above, there has been progress with respect to moving away from the
Eurocentrism contained in the first generation of ecological modernization studies. However,
the non-OECD countries under ecological modernization study to date mainly represent the
rapidly emerging economies of central and eastern Europe, East and South-east Asia and, to a
lesser degree, Latin America. Over the last decade, however, the relevance of ecological
modernization for countries and regions with low or negative growth rates and with thin and
fragmented connections with the world network society has been taken up as a pressing and
theoretically challenging theme. Research on critically important environmental
infrastructures in rapidly urbanizing sub-Saharan Africa, for example, has been organized
around the key concept of modernized mixtures6 (cf. Spaargaren et al. 2005; Hegger 2007). In
the African context, modernized mixtures refer to an ecological modernization strategy that is
sensitive to and adapted for the specific circumstances of societies with fragmented urban
infrastructures and ill-functioning institutions and (health and sanitary) practices. These new
studies are expected to deepen ecological modernization theory’s appreciation of the effects
of North-South relations and inequalities on the opportunities, limitations and particular forms
of ecological modernization in less-developed countries.

Environmental reform of global flows

Hyperglobalization and the emergence of a global network society are arguably key processes
that fundamentally change the face of the world – and of the earth. Hence, one of the key
challenges for the development and relevance of ecological modernization theory lies in
understanding such processes of hyperglobalization and the network society in relation to
environmental reform. In working on the new dynamics of change in global modernity, Mol
(2001) has addressed the ecological modernization of the global economy; and Sonnenfeld
(2002), Huber (2004), Angel and Rock (2005) and others have addressed industrial and
technological environmental transformation on a global scale. More recently, and
fundamentally, Spaargaren et al. (2006) have related ecological modernization theory to the
new sociology of networks and flows (Urry 2000) and, as such, have opened up a new field
for research on environmental reform. Instead of the conventional notion of place-based
environmental reform, the emphasis shifts to environmental reform in the ‘space of flows’,
related to globalized, deterritorialized, and de-nationalized mobilities and flows. This shift has
started to inspire a range of empirical studies on the environmental reform of all kinds of
global environmental issues and transnational flows. For instance, Presas (2005) uses this
conceptual framework for investigating the sustainable construction of transnational buildings
in global cities; Oosterveer and colleagues (Oosterveer 2007; Bush and Oosterveer 2007;
Oosterveer et al. 2007) apply the framework to global food production and consumption; Mol
(2007, 2010) investigates environmental reform of global biofuel networks and of mega
events such as the Olympics; and van Koppen (2006) uses the conceptual framework for
exploring biodiversity flows. The so-called environmental sociology of networks and flows
raises a number of questions, challenges and insights for environmental reform studies in the
21st century (as reported by Spaargaren et al. 2006; Rau 2010), and much work lies ahead of
both theoretical and empirical significance. It can be expected that such an elaboration of
ecological modernization – with the help of key concepts of networks, scapes, hybrids and
flows – will result in new insights into the dynamics of environmental change under
conditions of hyperglobalization, and to the development of a new generation of governance
approaches to affect those dynamics in more positive (and environmental) directions at the
global and local scales.

The cultural dimensions of ecological modernization

When trying to address environmental flows in the context of the global network society,
ecological modernization scholars are confronted with the increased intermingling of social
and ecological sub-systems that so far have been analytically separated in (ecological)
modernization theory. From its roots in systems theory, states, markets, and civil society were
conceived of as independent spheres, each interacting in a specific way with each other and
with the emerging ecological sphere. This point brings us back to where it all started in
Ecological modernization: the differentiation of an independent ecological sphere or
subsystem in late modern societies in the last decades of the second millennium. But, after the
conceptual emancipation of the ecological sphere, there has to follow a re-embedding of the
ecological sphere in society by reconnecting the ecological sphere to the spheres of market,
state and civil society. And while the relationship with economic and political rationalities has
already been discussed and explored in some depth, the theoretical and practically-oriented
anchoring of ecological rationalities in the socio-cultural sphere of civil society remains a
huge task yet to be fully taken up. What images of the good, sustainable life do we have to
offer to lay people, to concerned citizen-consumers, the deprived, householders, youngsters,
middle classes in transitional economies, inhabitants of slums etc.? What is at stake here is the
need to develop the cultural dimension of ecological modernization in much greater detail.
Especially in the field of consumption studies, this (re)connecting of ecological rationalities to
everyday life has been taken up as a challenging task (Spaargaren 2011). Again, most of these
studies tend to be confined to OECD countries, and it is unknown as yet what relevance they
will have for analyzing the lifeworlds and lifestyles of the citizen-consumers in the fast
emerging middle-classes of the upcoming economies of China, India, Brazil, Russia and
elsewhere.

Epilogue

This chapter has given a broad overview of the accomplishments of three decades of
ecological modernization studies, key debates involving ecological modernization theory
during this period, and elements of a research agenda for future studies in this area. In the
early years of the second decade of the third millennium, the environmental challenges faced
by humankind are both better understood, and socially and politically as daunting, as ever (see
Sonnenfeld and Mol 2011). Ecological modernization scholarship’s challenge is to provide
the conceptual and change-oriented frameworks, and empirical examples and evidence from
around the world, to enable scholars, policymakers, and citizens to understand, design and
implement institutional and social arrangements that address those environmental challenges,
albeit in ways suitable to local contexts. As that all happens in a rapidly changing world and
with accumulating insights and knowledge, ecological modernization ideas will continue to
evolve dynamically over time, deepening their scientific basis while increasing their salience
for policymaking.

Notes
1
This chapter is based partially on Spaargaren, Mol and Sonnenfeld, "Ecological Modernization: Assessment,
Critical Debates and Future Directions," The Ecological Modernization Reader (Routledge 2009), pp. 501-520.
2
The early 1980s were marked by the rise of global neoliberalism, led by US President Ronald Reagan and UK
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and strong corporate and governmental backlashes against the environmental
regulations of the 1970s and the social movements that had supported them.
3
The absence of environmental themes in most of the major social theories had been a worry among
environmental sociologists from the very early days, and resulted in the formulation of the so-called HEP-NEP
dichotomy: the Human Exemptionalist Paradigm (HEP) of the mother discipline and the New Ecological
Paradigm (NEP) of environmental sociology (cf. Catton and Dunlap 1978a, 1978b; Mol 2006). Instead of
building upon the HEP-NEP debate, ecological modernization scholars used the European sociological tradition
of system theory (Luhmann, Habermas) and discourse analysis (Hajer) as their main starting points.
4
It may be suggested, for example, that Huber’s (2004) study on environmental technologies retains the
technocentric orientation of his earlier work.
5
Ecological modernization analyses do seem to move further into quantitative studies (e.g. Sonnenfeld and Mol
2006; Choy 2007; Buitenzorgy and Mol 2011).
6
Mixed modernities or ‘modernized mixtures’ refer to socio-technical configurations of infrastructures in which
features of different (modern) systems have been deliberately and reflexively reconstructed to deal with dynamic
social, economic and environmental contexts and challenges.

References

Andersen, M.S. (1994) Governance by Green Taxes. Making Pollution Prevention Pay.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Angel, D.P. and M.T. Rock, M.T. (2005) Industrial Transformation in the Developing World.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Barrett, B. (ed) (2005) Ecological Modernization in Japan. London: Routledge
Barry J. (1999) Rethinking Green Politics. London: Sage.
Beck, U. (1986) Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Beck, U. (1992) ‘From Industrial Society to the Risk Society: Questions of Survival, Social
Structure and Ecological Enlightenment’, Theory, Culture and Society, 9, pp. 97–123.
Beck, U. (2005) Power in the Global Age. A New Global Political Economy. Cambridge: Polity
Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S. (1994) Reflexive Modernization, Politics, Tradition and
Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Blühdorn, I. (2000) ‘Ecological Modernization and Post-Ecologist Politics’, pp. ???? in G.
Spaargaren, A.P.J. Mol and F. Buttel (eds) Environment and Global Modernity. London:
Sage.
Burg, S.W.K. van den (2006) Governance Through Information: Environmental Monitoring
from a Citizen-Consumer Perspective, Wageningen: Wageningen University (PhD
dissertation).
Bush, S.R. and Oosterveer, P. (2007) ‘The Missing Link: Intersecting Governance and Trade
in the Space of Place and the Space of Flows’, Sociologia Ruralis, 47, 4, pp. 384–399.
Buttel F.H. (2003) ‘Environmental Sociology and the Explanation of Environmental Reform’,
Organization and Environment, 16, 3, pp. 306–344.
Buytenzorgy, M. and Mol, A.P.J. (2011) ‘Does Democracy Lead to A Better Environment?
Deforestation and the Democratic Transition Peak’, Environmental and Resource
Economics, 48, 1, pp. 59–70.
Carolan, M. (2004) ‘Ecological Modernization: What about Consumption?’, Society and
Natural Resources, 17, 3, pp. 247–260.
Catton, W.R. and Dunlap, R.E. (1978a) ‘Environmental Sociology: A New Paradigm’, The
American Sociologist, 13, pp. 41–49.
Catton, W.R. and Dunlap, R.E. (1978b) ‘Paradigms, Theories, and the Primacy of the HEP-
NEP Distinction’, The American Sociologist, 13, pp. 256-259.
Choy E.A. (2007) A Quantitative Methodology to Test Ecological Modernization Theory in
The Malaysian Context, Wageningen: Wageningen University (PhD thesis)
Christoff, P. (1997) ‘Ecological Modernization, Ecological Modernities’, Environmental
Politics, 5, 3, pp. 476–500.
Cohen, M. (1997) ‘Risk Society and Ecological Modernization: Alternative Visions for
Postindustrial Nations’, Futures, 29, 2, pp. 105-119.
Dickens, P. (1991) Society and Nature. Towards a Green Social Theory. New York: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Dobson, A. (1990) Green Political Thought. London: Unwin Hyman.
Dryzek, J.S. (1987) Rational Ecology. Environment and Political Economy, Oxford/New
York: Blackwell.
Eckersley, R. (1992) Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric Approach.
London: UCL Press.
Eckersley, R. (2004) The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Fisher, D. (2002) ‘From the Treadmill of Production to Ecological Modernization? Applying
a Habermasian Framework to Society-Environment relationships’, pp. 53-64 in A.P.J.
Mol and F.H. Buttel (eds) The Environmental State under Pressure. Amsterdam: Elsevier,
Fisher-Kowalski, M. (1997) ‘Society’s Metabolism: On the Childhood and Adolescence of a
Rising Conceptual Star’, pp. 119–137 in M. Redclift and G. Woodgate (eds.) The
International Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Geels, F.W. (2005) Technological Transitions and System Innovation: A Co-Evolutionary and
Socio-Technical Analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.
Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Gottlieb, R. (1993) Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental
Movement. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gould, K.A., Pellow, D.N. and Schnaiberg, A. (2008) The Treadmill of Production: Injustice
and Unsustainability in the Global Economy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Hajer, M.A. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and
the Regulation of Acid Rain. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
Hajer, M.A. (1996) ‘Ecological Modernization as Cultural Politics’, pp. 246-268 in S. Lash et al.
(eds.) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London: Sage:.
Hannigan, J. (2006) Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructionist Perspective. London
and New York: Routledge.
Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Heinonen, S., Jokinen, P. and Kaivo-oja, J. (2001) ‘The Ecological Transparency of the
Information Society’, Futures, 33, pp. 319–337.
Hobson K. (2002) ‘Competing Discourses of Sustainable Consumption: Does the
“Rationalisation of Lifestyles” Make Sense?’, Environmental Politics, 11, 2, pp. 95–120.
Hegger, D. (2007) Greening Sanitary Systems, An End-User Perspective. Wageningen,
Wageningen University (Dissertation).
Huber, J. (1982) Die verlorene Unschuld der Ökologie. Neue Technologien und
superindustrielle Entwicklung. Frankfurt/Main: Fisher.
Huber, J. (1989) Technikbilder. Weltanschaulich Weichenstellungen der Technik- und
Umweltpolitik. Opladen: Westdeutcher Verlag.
Huber, J. (2004) New Technologies and Environmental Innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar.
Jalas M. (2006) ‘Sustainable Consumption Innovations: Instrumentalization and Integration of
Emergent Patterns of Everyday Life’, in: M. Munch Andersen and A. Tukker (eds.)
Perspectives on Radical Changes to Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP).
Proceedings of the workshop of the SCORE-network. Copenhagen, Denmark 20-21 April
2006.
Jamison A. (2001) ‘Environmentalism in an Entrepreneurial Age: Reflections on the Greening
of Industry Network’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 3, pp. 1–13.
Jänicke, M. (1986) Staatsversagen. Die Ohnmacht der Politik in der Industriegesellschaft.
München: Piper.
Jänicke, M. (1990) ‘Erfolgsbedingungen von Umweltpolitik im internationalen Vergleich’,
Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht, 3, pp. 213–232.
Jänicke, M. (1993) ‘Über Ökologische und Politische Modernisierungen’, Zeitschrift für
Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht, 2, pp. 159-175.
Jänicke, M. (1995) The Political System’s Capacity for Environmental Policy, Berlin: Freie
Universität.
Kleindorfer, P.R. and Orts, E.W. (1999) ‘Informational Regulation of Environmental Risks’,
Risk Analysis, 18, pp. 155-170.
Koppen, C.S.A. van (2006) ‘Governing Nature? On the Global Complexity of Biodiversity
Conservation’, pp. 187–220 in G. Spaargaren, A.P.J. Mol and F.H. Buttel (eds.)
Governing Environmental Flows. Global Challenges for Social Theory. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Lang , G. (2002) ‘Deforestation, Floods and State Reactions in China and Thailand’, pp. 195–
220 in A.P.J. Mol and F.H. Buttel (eds.) The Environmental State Under Pressure,
Amsterdam/New York: Elsevier.
Latour, B. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Liefferink, J.D., Lowe, P.D. and Mol, A.P.J. (eds.)(1993) European Integration and
Environmental Policy. London/New York: Belhaven Press
Mez, L. and Weidner, H. (1997)(eds.) Umweltpolitik und Staatsversagen. Perspektiven und
Grenzen der Umweltpolitikanalyse. Berlin: Ed Sigma.
Mol, A.P.J. (1995) The Refinement of Production. Ecological Modernization Theory and the
Chemical Industry, Utrecht: Jan van Arkel/International Books.
Mol, A.P.J. (2001) Globalization and Environmental Reform: The Ecological Modernization
Of The Global Economy. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
Mol, A.P.J. (2006) ‘From environmental Sociologies to Environmental Sociology? A
Comparison of US and European Environmental Sociology’, Organisation and
Environment, 19, 1, pp. 5–27.
Mol, A.P.J. (2007) ‘Boundless Biofuels? Between Environmental Sustainability and
Vulnerability’, Sociologia Ruralis, 47, 4, pp. 297–315.
Mol, A.P.J. (2008) Environmental Reform in the Information Age. The Contours of
Informational Governance, Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mol, A.P.J. (2010) ‘Sustainability as Global Attractor: The Greening of the 2008 Beijing
Olympics’, Global Networks, 10, 4, pp. 510-528.
Mol, A.P.J. (2011) ‘China’s Ascent and Africa’s Environment’, Global Environmental
Change, 21, 3, pp. 785–794.
Mol, A.P.J., and Buttel, F.H. (eds.)(2002) The Environmental State Under Pressure.
Amsterdam: JAI.
Mol, A.P.J., and Sonnenfeld, D.A. (eds.)(2000) Ecological Modernization Around the World.
Perspectives and Critical Debates. London and Portland: Frank Cass/Routledge.
Mol, A.P.J., Sonnenfeld, D.A and Spaargaren, G. (eds.)(2009) The Ecological Modernization
Reader: Environmental Reform in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Mol, A.P.J. and Spaargaren, G. (2000) ‘Ecological Modernization Theory in Debate: A
Review’, Environmental Politics. 9, 1, pp. 17–49.
Mol, A.P.J., and Spaargaren, G. (2004) ‘Ecological Modernization and Consumption: A
Reply’, Society and Natural Resources, 17, pp. 261–265.
O’Connor, J. (1997) Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. New York: Guilford.
Oosterveer, P. (2007) Global Governance of Food Production and Consumption. Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar.
Oosterveer P., Guivant, J.S., Spaargaren, G. (2007) ‘Shopping for Green Food in Globalizing
Supermarkets: Sustainability at the Consumption Junction’, pp. 411-428 in J. Pretty, A.
Ball, T. Benton, J. Guivant, D. Lee, D. Orr, M. Pfeffer and H. Ward (eds.) Sage Handbook
on Environment and Society. London: Sage.
Pellow, D.N., Weinberg, A.S. and Schnaiberg, A. (2000) ‘Putting Ecological Modernization
to the Test: Accounting for Recycling’s Promises and Performance’, Environmental
Politics, 9, 1, pp. 109–137.
Pepper, D. (1984) The Roots of Modern Environmentalism. London: Croom Helm.
Pepper, D. (1999) ‘Ecological Modernization or the “Ideal Model” of Sustainable
Development? Questions Prompted at Europe’s Periphery’, Environmental Politics, 8, 4,
pp. 1–34.
Presas, L.M. (2005) Transnational Buildings in Local Environments. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Princen, T., Maniates, M. and Conca, K. (eds.)(2002) Confronting Consumption. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Rau, H. (2010) ‘(Im)mobility and Environment-Society Relations: Arguments for and Against
the “Mobilisation” of Environmental Sociology’, pp. 237-254 in M. Gross and H.
Heinrichs (eds.) Environmental Sociology: European Perspectives and Interdisciplinary
Challenges. Dordrecht: Springer.
Schnaiberg, A. (1980) The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Schnaiberg, A., Weinberg, A.S. and Pellow, D.N. (2002) ‘The Treadmill of Production and
the Environmental State’, pp.15-32 in A.P.J. Mol and F.H. Buttel (eds.) The
Environmental State Under Pressure. Amsterdam: JAI.
Schot, J. (1992) ‘Constructive Technology Assessment and Technology Dynamics: The Case of
Clean Technologies’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 17, 1, pp. 36–56.
Shove E. (2003) Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social Organisation of
Normality. New York: Berg.
Smith, T., Sonnenfeld, D.A. and Pellow, D.N. (eds.)(2006) Challenging the Chip: Labor
Rights and Environmental Justice in the Global Electronics Industry. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Sonnenfeld, D.A. (2002) ‘Social Movements and Ecological Modernization: The
Transformation of Pulp and Paper Manufacturing’, Development and Change, 33, 1, pp.
1–27.
Sonnenfeld, D.A. (ed.)(2008) ‘Symposium on “Globalisation and Environmental Governance:
Is Another World Possible?”’, Global Environmental Change, 18, 3.
Sonnenfeld, D.A. and Mol, A.P.J. (2006) ‘Environmental Reform in Asia: Comparisons,
Challenges, Next Steps’, Journal of Environment and Development, 15, 2, pp. 112–137.
Sonnenfeld, D.A. and Mol, A.P.J. (eds.)(2011) ‘Symposium on “Social Theory and the
Environment in the New World (Dis)Order”’, Global Environmental Change, 21, 3.
Spaargaren, G. (2003) ‘Sustainable Consumption: A Theoretical and Environmental Policy
Perspective’, Society and Natural Resources, 16, 1–15.
Spaargaren, G. (2011) ‘Theories of Practices: Agency, Technology, and Culture. Exploring
the Relevance of Practice Theories for the Governance of Sustainable Consumption
Practices in the New World-Order’, Global Environmental Change, 21, 3, pp. 813–822.
Spaargaren, G., and Mol, A.P.J. (1992) ‘Sociology, Environment and Modernity: Ecological
Modernization as a Theory of Social Change’, Society and Natural Resources, 5, 4, pp.
323–344.
Spaargaren, G., and Mol, A.P.J. (2008) ‘Greening Global Consumption: Redefining Politics
and Authority’, Global Environmental Change, 18, 3, pp. 350–359.
Spaargaren, G., and van Koppen, C.S.A. (2010) ‘Provider Strategies and the Greening of
Consumption Practices: Exploring the Role of Companies in Sustainable Consumption’,
 pp. 81–100 in H. Lange and L. Meier (eds.) The New Middle Classes: Globalizing
Lifestyles, Consumerism and Environmental Concern. London/New York: Springer.
Spaargaren, G., Mol, A.P.J. and Buttel, F.H. (eds.)(2006). Governing Environmental Flows:
Global Challenges to Social theory. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
Spaargaren, G., Oosterveer, P., van Buuren J. and Mol, A.P.J. (2005) Mixed Modernities:
Toward Viable Urban Environmental Infrastructure Development in East Africa. Position
Paper. Wageningen: Wageningen University.
Tatenhove, J. van, Arts, B. and Leroy, P. (eds.)(2000) Political Modernization and the
Environment: The Renewal of Policy Arrangements. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Tatenhove, J. van and Pieter, L. (2003) ‘Environment and Participation in a Context of
Political Modernization’, Environmental Values, 12, 2, pp. 155–174.
Urry, J. (2000) Sociology Beyond Society. London: Routledge.
Wackernagel, M., and Rees, W. (1998) Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact
on Earth. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Weale, A. (1992) The New Politics of the Environment, Manchester, UK: MUP.
Weinberg, A.S., Pellow, D.N. and Schnaiberg, A. (2000) Urban Recycling and the Search for
Sustainable Community Development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wilson, D.C. (2002) ‘The Global in the Local: The Environmental State and the Management
of the Nile Perch Fishery on Lake Victoria’, pp. 171–192 in A.P.J. Mol and F.H. Buttel
(eds.), The Environmental State Under Pressure. Amsterdam: JAI.
York, R. and Rosa, E.A. (2003) ‘Key Challenges to Ecological Modernization Theory’,
Organization and Environment, 16, 3, pp. 273–287.
York, R., Rosa, E.A. and Dietz, T. (2003) ‘A Rift in Modernity? Assessing the Anthropogenic
Sources of Global Climate Change with the STIRPAT Model’, International Journal of
Sociology and Social Policy, 23, 10, pp. 31–51.
Young, S. (ed.)(2001) The Emergence of Ecological Modernization. London: Routledge.

View publication stats