2009
DOI: 10.1002/sd.403
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ecological modernization as a paradigm of corporate sustainability

Abstract: Ecological modernization as a social theory is gaining more and more attention in environmental social science in general and environmental management studies in particular. Ecological modernization carries a positive message of the current institutional order being able to accommodate the challenge of ecological sustainability. This paper, by applying a critical organization studies perspective, highlights some of the theoretical shortcomings of the theory of ecological modernization assessed at the micro lev… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
28
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
1
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…EM theory has been criticized for building on the idea of sustainable growth, which can be considered a theoretical paradox (Mol & Sonnenfeld, 2009). EM theory has also been criticized for its disregard for social justice (Fisher & Freudenburg, 2001;Jensen & Gram-Hanssen, 2008;Pataki, 2009). Langhelle (2000) argues that EM and sustainability should not be conflated at a conceptual level.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…EM theory has been criticized for building on the idea of sustainable growth, which can be considered a theoretical paradox (Mol & Sonnenfeld, 2009). EM theory has also been criticized for its disregard for social justice (Fisher & Freudenburg, 2001;Jensen & Gram-Hanssen, 2008;Pataki, 2009). Langhelle (2000) argues that EM and sustainability should not be conflated at a conceptual level.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Obviously there is great inertia, a disinclination to enact necessary change, in unsustainable activities (e.g., Wittneben et al, 2012). While there is much in the literature to explain inertia at the individual level (e.g., Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002;Padel & Foster, 2005), at the organizational level (e.g., Pataki, 2009;Post & Altman, 1994) or at the societal level (Daly, 2013;Hopwood et al, 2005;Mol & Sonnenfeld, 2000), explanations that focus on the industrial level are lacking. For instance, some explanations of climate change inertia view it as a "tragedy of the commons" (Dietz et al, 2003;Pfeiffer & Nowak, 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 EM has developed into a broad range of dimensions in a relatively short period of time. As Pataki (2009) summarises, theorists have approached it as a distinct social theory (Cohen 1997, Buttel 2000, as a dominant public policy discourse (Hajer 1995, Bulkeley 2001 and as a framework for environmental policy change from local to international level (Gibbs 2000, Lundqvist 2000. At its core, however, is the contention that economic development and environmental protection are not such deep adversaries as previous ecological theory implied.…”
Section: Business-ngo Engagement and The Links To Social Movement Theorymentioning
confidence: 95%
“…2. For more detailed summaries of ecological modernisation theory, see Christoff (1996), Mol and Spaargaren (2000), Milanez and Bu¨hrs (2007), Pataki (2009). 3.…”
Section: Changing Relationships: Stakeholder Dialogue and The Challenmentioning
confidence: 99%