ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
does not escape definitional problems. Whilst there is a reasonable consen-
sus about the core characteristics of ecological modernisation, there are
sufficient differences between writers to distinguish between ‘weak’ and
‘strong’ versions along a continuum (Christoff1996b). In its weaker ‘techno-
corporatist’ form, ecological modernisation focuses on the development of
technical solutions to environmental problems through the partnership of
economic, political and scientific elites in corporatist policymaking struc-
tures (Hajer 1995 ). It is a narrow understanding of the concept, ‘a discourse
forengineers and accountants’ (Dryzek 2005 :172), that largely excludes con-
sideration of development and democratic issues. The stronger ‘reflexive’
version of ecological modernisation adopts a much broader approach to the
integration of environmental concerns across institutions and wider soci-
ety, envisaging extensive democratisation and recognising the international
dimensions of environmental issues (Hajer 1995 ). Seen in this light it is
not clear how far the stronger version differs significantly from sustainable
development; indeed, Hajer ( 1995 )identifies the Brundtland Report as ‘one
of the paradigm statements of ecological modernisation’ (p. 26). This strong
version of ecological modernisation is perhaps best regarded as a particu-
lar variant of sustainable development that focuses on the role of business
and the problems of industrialised countries. Paradoxically, the weaker ver-
sion of ecological modernisation is more distinct from sustainable devel-
opment, although, as ‘little more than a rhetorical rescue operation for a
capitalist economy confounded by ecological crises’ (Dryzek 2005 :174), that
vision may have less appeal. Mol and Spaargaren ( 2000 ) suggest that this
simplistic dichotomy reflects a dated interpretation of the literature that
does not take account of the mushrooming of theoretical and empirical
studies since the mid-1990s. In particular, they argue that the narrow con-
ceptualisation of ecological modernisation as involving little more than the
introduction of ‘add-on’ technologies misrepresents the way the discourse
has moved on to consider fundamental structural changes to socio-technical
systems.
Secondly, although ecological modernisation is attractive to Northern pol-
icy elites precisely because its narrower focus omits the political baggage (i.e.
thedevelopment agenda) that comes with sustainable development, perhaps
theomission of social justice issues is its Achilles’ heel. For example, tech-
niques such as ‘life-cycle assessment’ are increasingly used to analyse the
environmental impact of a product ‘from cradle to grave’ to include all
theinputs of raw materials and energy and all the outputs of air, water
and solid waste emissions generated by the production, use and disposal
of a product. Life-cycle assessment offers enormous potential benefits but it
largely ignores the issues of equity and social justice raised by the broader
sustainable development discourse. Ecological modernisation is predicated
on the utilitarian argument that by making pollution prevention pay, all
actors – government, business, consumers, environmental groups – can play
apositive-sum game in which everyone benefits and everyone participates.