(1997) green business technicist kitsch by Negocios Verdes Zipaquira

Joumal of Management Studies 34:1 January 1997

0022-2380

GREEN BUSINESS: TECHNICIST KITSCH?* T I M NEWTON

University of Edinburgh GEORGE HARTE

University of Glasgow

ABSTRACT In this paper we present a critical analysis of current 'green business' literature. We pay particular attendon to the strongly evangelical language of the literature, and we consider whether such green evangelism is likely to represent an effective rhetorical strategy. We pursue this theme through exploring arguments for 'environmental excellence', organizational 'eco-cultures', and for corporate environmental strategies. We suggest that current prescriptions for 'organizational ecochange' are often buttressed by evangelic^ rhetoric and are reliant on the assumption that organizations will voluntarily become greener. Given the centrality of voluntarism within this literature, we devote the latter part of the paper to considering its efficacy, and explore the deferred argument that organizational eco-change will only come about through stronger state regulation. ESTTRODUCTION

This paper is concemed with current discussions about the relationship between organizations and the natural environment as represented in 'green business' literature. Although this literature is newly emergent, we shall try to illustrate how there is already a degree of consensus within it. By 'green business literature' we chiefly mean the spate of books, joumals and joumal articles that have appeared in the late 1980s and early 1990s, proferring both managerijilist prescriptions and 'serious' academic analysis. Much of this literature is informed by a unitary view of organizations wherein lack of environmental commitment is seen as a consequence of having, say, the 'wrong' organizational culture. This perspective not orJy applies to the so-called 'shallow green' movement, who tend to promote environmentalism in the context of a continuing commitment to profit maximization, but even to some 'deep greens', for whom the ideology of economic growth is seen as needing to be replaced by one more consistent with ecological sustainability. Whether shallow or deep green, the text of many writers is also

Address for reprints: Tim Newton is on secondment to Birkbeck College, University of London until 30 September 1997. Address requests for reprints to Tim Newton, Department of Organizational Psychology, Birkbeck College, University of London, Malet Street, London W C I E 7HX, UK. ÂŠ BlackweU PubUshers Ltd 1997. PubUshed by BlackweU PubUshers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 IJF, UK and 238 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.

TIM NEWTON AND GEORGE HARTE

peppered with a strong environmental evangelism, and a desire to show companies 'the right way forward'. Our paper sets out to analyse this literature from the perspecdve of debates within organization studies. First we wiU focus on one of the main technical elements of the literature, namely the notion of environmental audit. Secondly, we wiU iUustrate and discuss the evangelism that characterizes much of the literature, its missionary zeal to convert. We wiU also consider the efficacy of evangelism as a rhetoriceil basis for enrolling managers in the greening of business. Thirdly, we wiU examine in greater detaU the prescriptions that exist within the literature for organizational change towards environmentalism, or what might be termed 'organizational eco-change'. FinaUy, current green business literature very largely assumes that organizational eco-change wiU come about through the voluntary actions of business managers, rather than through legal compulsion. In the final section of the paper we shaU seek to question voluntarist assumptions.

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT

Much of the green business literature is technicist in orientation, promoting the notion that successful organizational eco-change largely results from adopting the appropriate environmental technology and management system. Within this technicist orientation, a major concept is that of environmental audit. Particularly influential in this regard has been the approach developed by the Intemational Chamber of Commerce (1989) which stresses environmental audit as a key management tool. A similar promotion of environmental audit has been witnessed among academic commentators. For example. Gray et al. (1993, p. 79) suggest that environmental audit has 'become synonymous with organizational response to the green agenda'. However as Gray and CoUison (1991) and Gray and Symon (1992) also note, the concept of audit is often very poorly defined, and environmental audit provides no exception. Nevertheless, within the UK and Europe, there are increasing moves towards consensus based on the influence of the British Standards Institution's (BSI) standard on environmental management systems, BS7750 (which represents a direct descendant of the quality standard, BS5750), and the drafting of the European Commission's Eco-Management and Audit (EMA) scheme (Clark, 1993; GUbert, 1994; Hillary, 1993).^'^ These environmental audit frameworks pay particular attention to issues such as formulating environmental reviews and policies within an organization, assessing auditable environmental standards, impacts and targets (e.g. poUution reduction targets), and developing environmental strategy. Organizations should also attempt to develop an overaU environmental management system (EMS) which brings together the main environmental elements (e.g. policy, audit, strategy). Within an EMS, there is often particular attention to certain areas of environmental management such as energy efficiency and waste/poUudon control (Gray et al., 1993). Though the EC proposals were originaUy for a compulsory environmental audit scheme, these proposals were watered down foUowing industrial lobbying (Power, 1991), and the present proposal of the EU CouncU Reguladon is for a scheme aUowing voluntary pardcipadon by companies (which also aUows companies to focus only on 'selected' sites). Related to these developments are proposals ÂŠ BlackweU Publisher Ltd 1997

CREEN BUSINESS: TECHNICIST KITSCH?

for a complex EU regulatory environment to administer the voluntary scheme (see Clark, 1993). Some green business writers appear to believe that simply promoting these technical 'solutions' to environmentalism - i.e. environmental audit and environmental management systems - will be enough to ensure organizational ecochange. For example, 'Business in the Environment' (1992; an 'initiative' of 'Business in the Community') documents a series of technical guidelines on the measurement and improvement of environmental performance, and then provides 14 brief exemplars of organizations which have applied environmental management. However, beyond a foreword from Prince Charles in which he states that he is sure that this 'worthwhile initiative' will 'generate considerable interest', there is litde account of quite why organizations will be motivated to change. In addition, in none of the example cases is there much indication of any difficulties in implementing organizational eco-change, and the implicit assumption throughout appears to be that what is most important is the technology and top management commitment. This portrayal of a largely unproblematic process of change is refiected in EU Council Regulations which promote the image of a neady ordered 'conversion' to environmentÂŁilism, wherein all that companies need to do is adopt an environmental management system, apply environmental audit etc. Explanations of just how this is going to happen are often near tautological. For example, 'Environmental management is put into action by a management system' (Commission of the European Communities, 1992, p. 18). Admittedly, the Council Regulation does then go on to try and specify the components of an environmental management system (e.g. 'establishment of an organizadon structure, definition of responsibilities...', p. 18), but the implicit assumption is that the creation and operation of these components is a straightforward matter that should not pose too many problems for European organizations. Aside from the technicism that appears dominant in a significant proportion of the green business literature, another common feature is its evangelism, a characteristic that is witnessed among the writing of practitioners, consultants and academics. Particularly among those writers who do acknowledge that organizational eco-change is about something more than just environmental technology, evangelism often forms the first and last line of defence in explaining just why change is going to happen. In the next two sections of the paper, we will illustrate this evangelism and consider its effectiveness as a rhetorical strategy aimed at the greening of business.

MISSIONARY ZEAL: SELLINC ENVIRONMENTALISM

Most green business texts start out by trying to convince the reader that not only will a commitment to the environment make you feel good in helping to save the planet, but it will also be good for your organization. A critical aspect of their overall approach is that they largely assume that decisions to pursue environmentalism will take place voluntarily rather than through legal enforcement (which, as we have seen, is mirrored by developments in EU regulation). Within such voluntarism, many writers adopt a tone which is highly evangelical, seeking ÂŠ BlackweU PubUshers Ltd 1997

TIM NEWTON AND GEORGE HARTE

to persuade readers of the rightness of their environmental cause. The implicit, and quite often explicit, reference point for this evangelism is Peters and Waterman's (1982) In Search of Excellence - except that the motives are no longer just that of making your organization an economic success, but also that you become an environmental 'winner'. As a number of writers have noted (e.g. Holloway, 1991; Thompson and McHugh, 1990), both the organization development literature and that of excellence draw on the human and neo-human relations discourse (as Peters and Waterman themselves acknowledged). They therefore tend to enshrine a 'Theory Y' view of employees as potentially responsible, autonomous and creative (McGregor, 1960), while employing a unitary apolidcism which assumes an underlying consensus (rather than conflict) of interest within organizations. The job of management is to remove blocks to the 'natural' consensus of values and interests that exist among organizational members. However, the excellence and corporate culture literature effect a subtle but significant twist to this kind of argument. As Willmott notes: 'instead of assuming a consensus of values (as theory Y does), corporate culturism aspires to build or manufacture consensus by managing the content and valency of employee values (1993, p. 525; emphasis added). Such a perspective has an obvious appeal to green business writers because they are unable simply to assume that employees will have 'appropriate' environmental values (so that there is no 'natural' consensus). Through employing the images of excellence literature, however, such writers have a vehicle which allows them to monitor and 'manage' the values of the employee but within a language that still appears dedicated to empowering and enabling the autonomous employee (Miller and Rose, 1990). Elkington and Burke provide an example of the way in which 'excellence' has been married with environmentalism. In the introduction to their frequently cited book. The Green Capitalists, Elkington and Burke tell us that: Many of the 'excellent' companies highlighted by Peters and Waterman have also built up a reputation for environmental excellence. For, while environmental excellence may not be a sufficient condition for business success in today's world, it is certainly now a necessary one. (Elkington and Burke, 1987 pp. 13-14) In this quotation, Elkington and Burke deftly link environmentalism to economic success, and note how both have a happy home in Peters and Waterman's notion of excellence. They go on to describe the famous 'eight criteria of excellence' as well as the environmental achievements of the 'excellent' companies of Peters and Waterman, such as Dow Chemical, Du Pont, Exxon, 3M, and of course, IBM. They also note how features of Peters and Waterman's prescription are also critical for environmental excellence, such as die need for 'posidve reinforcement' (Elkington and Burke, 1987, p. 208), and for a 'quality obsession' (p. 212). The cridcisms of In Search of Excellence are now well known within organizadonal studies (Silver, 1987; Thompson and McHugh, 1990; Willmott, 1993; Wilson, 1992), and we will dierefore only very briefly describe some of its central limitadons: (1) the subsequent lack of success of many of the 'excellent' companies (most classically, IBM); (2) die severe limitadons in research methodology, ÂŠ Blackwell PubUshers Ltd 1997

GREEN BUSINESS: TECHNICIST KITSCH?

with cases being picked or dropped according to whether they fitted the argument (Silver, 1987); (3) altemative explanations of the economic success of the excellent companies, such as the argument that IBM's (then) success was chiefly a product of monopoly power (Delamarter, 1988); (4) the lack of reliable evidence that strong corporate cultures do lead to economic success. Even Drucker has described In Search of Excellence as 'a book for juveniles' (quoted by Thompson and McHugh, 1990, p. 233). Yet in spite of this heavy critique, Elkington and Burke are not alone in arguing that the notion of organizational excellence provides a base for environmental excellence. For example, Davis argues that organizational change towards environmentalism wUl only come about through the right 'vision and value systems': 'the value systems will be people-centred, and the vision will foster co-operative excellence in innovation' (Davis, 1991, p. 56). Davis supports this argument through direct reference to the 'highly regarded American companies' described in In Search of Excellence which 'were essentiaUy people-oriented companies' and 'excellent innovative companies' (pp. 53-4). While other proponents of green business do not always use Peters and Waterman as their guide, they often draw on a similar formula, selecting cases which neatly support their arguments, downplaying or ignoring those that do not. The evangelism of the literature is immediately apparent in the way in that most texts are structured, even among those who provide more 'practical' treatments and less explicit evangelical rhetoric. As an example of the latter (undertaken for the Intemational Labour Office), North (1992, p. 29) provides a table listing 16 'economic' and 'strategic' 'benefits of environmental management' (e.g. reduced energy consumption, new market opportunities, improved public images, but provides no examples of any possible disadvantages that might be incurred in meeting the 'environmental challenge'. Even among writers who adopt a more academic stance (e.g. Gray et al., 1993; Welford, 1995), there is still a marked tendency toward the 'little vignettes illustrating success' approach that was so well deployed by Peters and Waterman. Most texts are littered with examples of the benefits to those who adopt environmental policies, and the 'casualty' cases that result when organizations ignore the importance of environmental considerations. Thus, North, drawing on the language of SWOT analysis, provides cases of companies that turned 'threats into opportunities', as illustrated by: The fight against air pollution [which] has produced clear benefits for a Swedish manufacturer of anti-air pollution gear for power plants. The company increased revenues from 1988 to 1989 by 50 per cent to US$700 million. (North, 1992, p. 32) Like this example, many of the cases cited in green busiriess texts are of companies whose products directly relate to markets that have to some extent been 'environmentalized', such as battery manufacturers (e.g. avoiding mercury or cadmium), or nappy manufacturers (avoiding chlorine bleaches). For example, in considering 'sustainability strategies and competitive advantage'. Stead and Stead (1992, p. 172) argue for the benefits of being a 'smart growth' organization which (once again) 'involves tuming environmental threats into business opportuÂŠ BlackweU Publishers Ltd 1997

TIM NEWTON AND GEORGE HARTE

nides'. Yet the only examples they provide of such smart growth firms are those whose technology and skills are (again) specific to the environmental market, such as the 'recycling industry ... organic foods and recreation ... water treatment, travel, and entertainment' (pp. 172-3). Not only are these texts highly selective in their use of cases in a manner strongly reminiscent of Peters and Waterman, but many of the cases they do highlight are examples of organizations that are 'successful' in very specialized and specific environmental markets. The impression is created that most organizations could profit from entering such markets even though successful entry is likely to be limited to those who have the relevant environmental expertise. For many organizations, developing business acumen in areas such as recycling, organic foods, travel etc. may be either extremely difficult or ill-advised. In addition, what evidence is available suggests that even among environmentally oriented organizations, moves towards organizational eco-change have little relation to the perceived existence of market opportunities. For example, Schot and Fischer (1993, p. 13) state that innovative organizations will gain a 'competitive advantage' in new environmental markets. Yet in the volume they edit, interview and questionnaire research among supposedly more 'innovative' German firms indicated that 'exploitation of market opportunities' was among the least common reasons given by organizations considering organizational ecochange, cited by only 18 per cent of the study's respondents, while as few as 7 per cent indicated that they had actually implemented any programmes aimed at entering new markets (Steger, 1993, p. 158). Evangelical fervour does not only apply to managerialist contributions but is also found in academic treatments of this field. This is particularly apparent in the kind of language that is employed, where there is a predominance of words like 'must' or 'it is vital to...'. Thus in explaining how organizations will change towards environmental objectives. Gray et al. resort to missionary language, imploring organizations to change since they 'must' do so, rather than explaining how or why they will. For example, they state that: Environmental response must permeate every aspect of the organization's activities, and must, therefore, be bedded into its long- and medium-term plans for the positioning of the organization, its processes, structures and products. This must start from the development and implementadon of an environmental policy This must then be used to ensure that - from an ethical and a (not endrely incompadble) business survival and strategy viewpoint â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 'environment' receives as much priority as a business policy as do markedng, technology, product development, and so on. (Gray et al., 1993, pp. 52-3; emphasis added) Other examples of academic evangelism are not uncommon. For example, Schot and Fischer (1993) have edited one of the more 'serious' academic collecdons on green business. Yet their introductory chapter evinces similar evangelical rhetoric to that found elsewhere. In this chapter they disdnguish between organizadons that are 'compliance oriented' and merely endeavour to meet legal requirements, and those that adopt an 'environmentally innovadve strategy ... based on the expectadon that excelling in protecdng the environment is necessary' (Schot and Fischer, 1993; p. 12; emphasis added). Yet there is litde account of ÂŠ BlackweU Publishers Ltd 1997

GREEN BUSINESS: TECHNICIST KITSCH?

quite why organizations are going to move from a compliance orientation towards an innovative commitment to environmental 'excelling' beyond a rather evangelical belief that the momentum towards environmentalism is inevitable: 'Regulatory and public pressures will become more powerful ... New markets will become more articulated' (p. 13; emphasis added). One final aspect of environmental evangelism is worth noting, namely the promotion of the business manager as a sort of 'eco-hero(ine)'. Anita Roddick of The Body Shop provides a good example of this feature of the literature, as she graphically portrays the weighty burdens that the business eco-hero must carry. She argues that we cannot rely on govemments to foster environmentalism since they will never do anything because politicians and voters think only of their short-term interests. If we wait for both these groups 'to be converted wholesale to environmentalism, we'll be waiting for ages' (Roddick, 1992, p. 73). In consequence the 'real moral burden' rests on the 'shoulders of industrial leaders' who 'must now lobby for the greater good' (p. 73). In sum, business leaders have the ultimate duty to save the planet, since seemingly no one else will. Yet quite how and why business managers will accept their 'moral burden' is not clear (particularly given that short-termism may apply as much to business management as to political government; Wilson, 1992). EVANGEUSM: A NECESSARY RHETORICAL STRATEGY?

It can be argued that the evangelism detailed above is and was a necessary rhetorical strategy to enrol managers in the greening of business, through an appeal that is aimed more at 'hearts' than 'minds'. In contrast, a highly analytical perspective might mean that the promised 'fruit' of a greener business withers and dies through tortuous examination. Evangelism can be seen as a tactic by which to provide an 'incitement to [environmental] discourse' (Foucault, 1981, p. 17). More agentially, it appears as a means of enrolling business managers (Callon, 1986, 1991) via activities such as the hiring of environmental consultants (Newton, 1996a). Such processes may have their own in-built momentum, since whatever the outcome of, say, hiring consultants, it is likely that the problematizadon of the environment which they help to incite will lead to further investment in environmentally related activities (Newton, 1995). For example, even if business managers in an organization are willing to admit to themselves that hiring a group of environmental consultants was ineffective in terms of perceived outcomes, the principal way in which they can subsequendy 'get wiser' is through further immersion in environmental discourse and practice - through, say, training courses and the hiring of environmental management graduates, or hiring other consultants. In consequence, the main objecdve may be to use whatever enrolling tactics are available on the basis that the aim is to 'start the ball rolling', relying on the argument that there is an in-built trajectory to discursive problematization processes. Within such a scheme, the emotional appeal of evangelism can be argued to be an important tactic. Underlying this emotional appeal can be seen to be a sense of what the feminist epistemologist, Kathy Ferguson, Ccdls 'kitsch'. For Ferguson, kitsch refers to the use of romantic and totalizing narradve which allows its authors to settle ÂŠ BlackweD PubUshers Ltd 1997

TIM NEWTON AND GEORGE HARTE

'into a comfortable claim ... using it to take on the world' (Ferguson, 1993, p. 181). As Ferguson notes, 'kitsch comes in communist, democradc, feminist, European, and third-world variedes', and is characterized by a tendency towards 'forms of sendmentality and self-delusion' (p. 67). Within organizadon studies, perhaps the most appejiling (reladvely) recent form of kitsch was 'Bravermania' with its liberal cum radical brew, its emodonal and dmely 1970s' reasserdon of the ideals of material jusdce and equality (through the portrayal of the crushing of such rights to the industrial worker). Ferguson derives her nodon of kitsch from Milan Kundera's (1984) The Unbearable Lightness of Being wherein Kundera implicidy notes the significance of kitsch in the creadon of social movements. Within social movements kitsch can appear through, say, popular iconic images which evoke the righteousness of the cause. To illustrate his sense of kitsch, it's worth quodng Kundera at some length: The feeling induced by kitsch must be a kind the muldtude can share. Kitsch may not, therefore, depend on an unusual situadon; it must derive from the basic images people have engraved in their memories; the ungrateful daughter, the neglected father, children mnning on the grass, the motherland betrayed, first love. Kitsch causes two tears to flow in quick succession. The first tear says: How nice to see the children running on the grass! The second tear says: How nice to be moved, together with all mankind, by children mnning on the grass! It is the second tear that makes kitsch kitsch. The brotherhood of man [sic) on earth will be possible only on a base of kitsch. (Kundera, 1984, p. 296; quoted in Ferguson, 1993, pp. 181-2, emphasis added) Following Kundera, it can be argued that environmental social movements are only possible through an appeal to kitsch. Our sendments are (understandably) evoked by the shared need to ensure that our great-grandchildren will be able to run among unpolluted grass, protected from the horrors of nuclear war, or another Chemobyl. In this light, the Greenpeace dolphin and the cuddly seal pup may be worth more than a hundred newspaper headlines, and though we know they are kitsch, we also sense that maybe they are effecdve, and therefore justifiable, kitsch. While green business evangelism lacks Greenpeace iconography, it can nevertheless appear as another forgivable kind of kitsch. Though quesdonable when subject to any kind of cridcal analysis, it still holds the promise of enrolling the hearts, if not the minds, of business managers. Yet a number of quesdons arise as to whether green business evangelism has the same 'broad brush' enrolling power as the near iconolatry provided by images of dolphins and seal pups. First, it is arguable that the extent of current business interest in environmentalism has far more to do with factors such as the percepdon of regulatory threat than with the evangelism of the green business literature. Acdvides such as industry lobbying of the European Union towards a voluntarisdc applicadon of the EMA eco-audit scheme, or the strong involvement of business 'environmental' groups at the Rio summit do suggest that regulatory threat is an issue of pardcular concem within a number of industries. Secondly, it may also be the case that many business ÂŠ Blackwell PubUshers Ltd 1997

GREEN BUSINESS: TECHNICIST KITSCH?

managers are likely to see evangelism for what it is, and will take a far more 'hard-headed' approach in their decisions regarding business practice. Evangelism may therefore represent a rather limited enrolling tactic, with litde in its appeal beyond a vague 'feel-good' factor. Certainly by itself it cannot provide a 'hook', or an 'obligatory passage point' in Callon's sense (Callon, 1986). The question also remains as to the dangers of evangelizing in the absence of a more critically thought through approach to making organizations greener. For example, the evangelical 'selling' of 'widespread' market opportunities is likely to backfire if such opportunities do not exist (see above). Thirdly, the lack of critical academic inquiry into the greening of business can itself be seen as partly a consequence of the reliance of green business researchers on appeals to evangelism. At worst it appears as though there is an assumption that one can evangelically promote 'solutions' such as environmental audit, and then ignore the question of why and how organizations will implement them since one is safe in the knowledge that they 'must' do so (because they 'will have to see' that 'it is vital' etc.). In spite of such criticisms, we do, however, retain some sympathies with those who employ evangelism as a rhetorical strategy (e.g. Gray et al., 1993). On the one hand, evangelism can appear rather quaint in the context of recent debates about postmodernism in organization studies, wherein the old touch-stones of appeals to truth and 'validity' have become increasingly relativized (Hassard and Parker, 1993). Evangelism appears as the antithesis of the demand that we should 'be playful with our sayings' (Gergen, 1992, p. 215) and acknowledge that 'all our attempts to discover "truth" should be seen for what they are - forms of discourse' (Parker, 1992, p. 3). Never mind irony and doubt, or debates over representation and realism (Newton, 1996b), evangelism is about good old-fashioned certainty, the proclamation from 'on high' that your arguments are 'right', that they represent the 'one and only way forward'. Yet on the other hand, if you accept that 'truth' is relative, then why not play with it and proclaim your 'green truths' even if you do feel them to be rather crude and simplistic. Albeit that one might be accused of adopting Olympian and metanarrativjil desires, evangelism can be seen as an appropriate, if somewhat deceitful, postmodern rhetorical strategy. The more refiexive writer may be aware that notions such as 'environmental excellence' are a fantasy, but still see political advantage in invoking the vision of the future 'reality' of a greener business world. As Michael argues, drawing on Latour (1988), we may accept that such attempts to define the real are debatable social constructions, but nevertheless use them since it is 'perfectly acceptable when one's purpose is to enable and encourage political [e.g. green] action and to enrol others as political activists' (Michael, 1996, p. 39). In other words, your (supposedly) higher values justify your epistemological deceit (Newton, 1996b). In this light, the problem with the current environmental evangelism appears not so much to be its evangelism per se, but whether it represents 'convincing deceit'. As Michael also argues, for the postmodern writer who doubts the real but wishes to use it politically, the aim is 'to evoke and invoke the real as energetically and cannily as possible' (Michael, 1996, p. 38). Green business writers certainly evoke the inevitability of a 'real' green business world energetically. The question that remains is whether they do it cannily enough. It can of course be argued that there was nothing particularly canny about the excellence literature ÂŠ Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1997

TIM NEWTON AND GEORGE HARTE

of the likes of Peters and Waterman. Yet that 1980s' story hints at a possible qualification of the need for canniness. In particular, if the discourse forms part of a more wide-ranging project, then perhaps a relatively simplistic argument will do. That is to say, as Miller and Rose have pointed out (Miller and Rose, 1990; Rose, 1989; Rose and Miller, 1992), discourses of excellence and of enterprise were particularly significant in the 1980s for the way in which they fostered an alignment between (1) the personal desires promoted of individuals to be autonomous and entrepreneurial, (2) the 'excellence' expected of organizations, and (3) the rationales of govemment to foster enterprise in 'free', deregulated, markets.'^^J For instance, the 'can-do' 'problem-solving' mentality of Peters and Waterman's 'turned on people' echoed the enterprising 'on your bike' citizen promoted at the level ofthe state. "^^^ Particularly in the UK, the mentality of enterprise and excellence appeared as part of a new political rationality of 'autonomization' (Rose and Miller, 1992, p. 199), supposedly freeing the organization, and the individual from the kind of extemal controls that were previously evinced by welfarism and the 'nanny state'. From this perspective, the problem for green evangelists becomes that of tying their project to programmes of (semi) neo-liberal govemment. Some writers do evidence awareness of this dilemma. For example, Elkington and Burke (1987, p. 250) declare that 'socialism, as an economic theory, though not as a moral cmsade, is dead)'. Yet to respond to this assessment by arguing for 'environmental excellence' ignores critical tensions in trying to hitch green desires to discourses of enterprise and excellence. First, the image of individualism and entrepreneurship within such discourse appears at variance with a more collectively oriented green subject that still appears to 'live and breathe' within green debates. Secondly, there is a tension between the promotion of the deregulated market that is implied in neo-liberal visions of enterprise, and the desire for a greener world. As we shall argue later, the greening of business may require more rather than less state regulation. In sum, while it seems arrogant to just dismiss the evangelism of the current green business literature, this does not mean that one should accept its efficacy as a rhetorical strategy. On the one hand, it is perhaps too transparent, insufficiendy canny in its attempt to enrol business managers. On the other, because of its very evangelism and its evocation of images of excellence, it is continually in danger of provoking the altematives which it appears to suppress, such as that of a more collectively oriented subject, or a stronger regulatory approach to green issues. With all these qualifications in mind, we shall now delve a litde deeper into this literature. First, we wish to acknowledge that not aU green business evangelists just proclaim that business 'must' act, and that economic success awiiits those who do so. Some writers do implicidy appear to recognize that evangelism alone may be insufficient to green business. And among these writers, there have been more focused attempts to consider rationales by which to translate organizational members into 'green agents'. Though these writers continue to evangelize and to draw on the imagery of excellence, they nevertheless appear implicidy to accept that organizational eco-change needs more specific practices if it is to be 'sustainable'. Yet in spite of the promise of the rationales they put forward, we are still led to doubt them. In order to illustrate these doubts we shsill now tum to a more detailed examination of some of the rationales currently on offer. For ÂŠ BlackweU PubUshere Ltd 1997

GREEN BUSINESS: TECHNICIST KITSCH?

reasons of economy, we shall focus on two of the more common prescriptions, namely the greening of organizational eco-cultures, and the devising of corporate environmental strategy. We shall try to illustrate how these two prescriptions are both strongly associated with, and buttressed by, evangelical desires. Following this analysis, we shall tum to the issues of voluntarism and state regulation.

ORGANIZATIONAL ECO-GHANGE Selling Environmental 'Cultures'

Given that In Search of Excellence remains the 'natural' model for environmental evangelism, it is not surprising that one of the predominant prescriptions for organizational change towards environmentalism is that of culture change. For while the excellence and culture literatures are far from identical, they do overlap to the extent that attention to culture forms a key feature of supposedly 'excellent' companies, providing 'a philosophy and system of beliefs that provide the transcending meaning' (Peters and Waterman, 1982, p. 81). For many writers, creating environmentally 'turned on' employees through culture change is the vital key in changing the organization (e.g. Davis, 1991; Gray et al., 1993). For example Stead and Stead (1992) argue that: 'If sustainability strategies are to be successfully implemented in business organizations, it is necessary that the values for a small planet become the foundation of strategic decisions. This will require ... changing organizational cultures' (p. 186). The traditional aims of the managerial 'corporate' culture change literature has been to change the values and identity of organizational members within the logics of profit maximization. However, the aim of 'environmenteJ cultural change' is not only to change such values but, according to some writers, it also meant to question the 'value' of profit maximization itself (e.g. Gray et al., 1993, p. 45). Not surprisingly, it is particularly 'deep green' writers who stress the need for culture change based on the premise that a deep green business ecology is going to require radical change. For example Gallenbach et al. of the Elmwood Institute in Berkeley, Galifornia argue that 'environmental auditing and other environmental management practices do not question the dominant corporate paradigm' (Callenbach et al., 1993, p. 61). Instead they suggest that diere must be a paradigmatic shift 'in values from expansion to conservation, from quantity to quality, from domination to partnership' (p. 60). This new value system will be achieved through 'a radical change' in corporate culture, and moving towards this goal 'is the very purpose of the Elmwood Institute' (p. 60). In spite of the seeming immensity of this goal, green business writers often appear to assume that culture change is relatively unproblematic. Evoking the evangelical spirit, some simply state that culture is central since 'an appropriate corporate culture is essential, but then give little advice beyond noting that it involves 'effective communication' and considering 'employee influence' (International Institute for Sustainable Development/Deloitte T'ouche, 1992, pp. 38-9; emphasis added). Others give slightly more detailed advice. For example, the prescription of Gray et al. is to create managerial openness by fostering 'a culture in which suggestions are encouraged' and by generating the 'right climate' through encouraging 'some degree of freedom within individuals' working lives', and ÂŠ BlackweU PubUshers Ltd 1997

TIM NEWTON AND GEORGE HARTE

through creadng the right 'tone from die top' (Gray et al., 1993, 48-9). Even deep greens who acknowledge die need for a 'radical' 'paradigm shift' still tend to assume that a 'radical' culture change can be reladvely easily achieved. Thus Callenbach et al. uncridcally accept the language of corporate culture drawing on writers such as Deal and Kennedy (1982), and dien argue diat deep green eco-cultures can be achieved so long as the management style is 'co-operadve and systemic':

The focus should be on liberating people's energies, recognizing their latent potendals; giving oHentadons; setdng processes in modon; showing respect and consideradon; emphasizing intuidon, meaning, and vision; increasing flexibility, and enhancing die system's learning potendal. Once these pattems are established,

eco-auditing project may virtually run itself. (Callenbach et al., 1993, p. 77; emphasis

added) Like die arguments of Gray et al., diis is both reminiscent of McGregor's Theory Y (McGregor, 1960) and evocadve of (the discursively related) images of excellence. Yet diere is no detailed explanadon as to quite why 'liberation' is going to happen, and seemingly no consideradon that diere might be some resistance. Though less indebted to images of excellence, Welford also promotes culture change as an obligatory passage point (Callon, 1986) in any path toward a deep green reality. He argues that current environmental audit measures such as EMA and BS7750 are insufficient since 'neither ... provide a real consideradon of the principles of sustainable development' (Welford, 1995, p. 77). Like many odier writers his language is strongly evangelical, peppered widi 'musts' and 'have to's', and 'we can no longer' etc. (see especially chapter 1). He suggests that die truly green organizadon is a 'transcendent' one which can 'transcend the limited ideologies and values associated widi tradidonal forms of environmental management [and] ... embrace ideas and policies more in keeping with deep ecology perspecdves' (Welford, 1995, p. 198). Culture change is central to such transcendence because: 'Uldmately, ecological management requires a new worldview and a commitment within every flrm to go dirough radical change in its corporate culture' (Welford, 1995, p. 82). Yet the quesdon that remains unaddressed in these proclamadons is that of whedier culture change is feasible, whedier it actually 'works'. This is not an endrely new quesdon; over a decade ago organizadonal writers were already quesdoning die feasibility of culture change (e.g. Fombrun, 1983). As Smircich (1983) then noted, there were already those who 'genuinely quesdon whether organizadonal culture is indeed manageable' (p. 346). There are a number of factors that have increased these doubts over die past decade. For example, reviewers have noted that published cases of 'successful' and persistent organizadonal culture change are extremely rare (e.g. Ogbonna, 1993; Smith and Peterson, 1988), widi some reviewers concluding diat die culture change field is 'a giant with clay feet - full of conceptp, models, theories and speculadons, but with a reladvely weak empirical basis' (Alvesson and Berg, 1992, p. 50). Some studies suggest that culture change programmes may produce only a resigned behavioural compliance (Ogbonna and Wilkinson, 1990), a conformity to die surface acdng requirements of the desired corporate culture (Hochschild, 1983), ÂŠ BlackweU PubUshers Ltd 1997

GREEN BUSINESS: TECHNICIST KITSCH?

rather than any intrinsic belief in the 'new values'. Others note how such surface conformity may result in an 'almost universal, undiscriminating cynicism' (Willmott, 1993, commendng on Kunda's, 1991, study of 'Tech'). At die same dme, corporate culture merchants have often tended 'to lose sight of the great likelihood that there are muldple organizadonal subcultures, or even counter cultures' (Smircich, 1983, p. 46) which may be highly resistant to change (Ackroyd and Crowdy, 1990). From this perspecdve, visions of 'a new worldview' committed to deep ecology through 'radical change in ... corporate culture' (Welford, 1995, p. 82) seem highly unlikely, given that it would require a remarkable homogeneity of belief, and an obliteradon of 'sub-cultures' and 'counter-cultures'. Yet the desire for new world-views (Welford, 1995), new value systems (Callenbach et al., 1993), or 'small planet' values (Stead and Stead, 1992) reveals the contradictions both in the nodon of culture change, and in its deployment as a green soludon. Culture represents something that is supposed to work from the 'bottom up', a 'natural' social development within particular local contexts. But the desires of green business writers are 'top-down', based on a somewhat totalitarian vision of what the new 'green values' world order should be (see Willmott, 1993). More generally, if we follow the cridcal literature on corporate culture change, the evangelical faith which green business writers place in it starts to look both rather opdmisdc and somewhat dated, given the increasing doubt exhibited by culture researchers. Ogbonna (1993) concludes: 'Culture appears then to have been reduced to the status of yet another concept which, like many before it, has reached the decline stage of its "life cycle"' (p. 51). Yet in tuming to this already rather battered change strategy, green business writers have 'upped' the stakes since their aim is not just to change values within a commitment to profit maximizadon, but to quesdon the value of profit maximizadon itself - a somewhat more challenging goal than the tradidonal aims of culture change programmes. Corporate Environmental Strategy

The corporate strategy literature also exhibits an increasing attention to environmental issues. As elsewhere, arguments for corporate environmental strategy are expressed through a notably evangelical language. For example in a 1992 special issue of Long Range Planning devoted to the 'strategic management of the environment', the contribudng authors condnually rely on imploratory invecdve: 'A corporadon's strategy must reflect society's environment^ needs in the future' (Amano, 1992, p. 4; emphasis added); 'Response to the environmental challenge cannot be deferred' (Hutchinson, 1992, p. 3; emphasis added). Yet beyond such evangelism, it is again not clear quite how this is going to happen. For example, the suppordve cases of organizadonal eco-change contJtined in the special issue of Long Range Planning are either quite specific (e.g. organizations who previously had a reputadon as 'a major polluter' such as Norsk Hydro), or they have been cridcized for having a somewhat tarnished environmental record (e.g. DuPont; see below). At a theoredcal level, writers on environmental strategy tend to simply rewrite the corporate strategy literature in environmental terms. For example, Beaumont et al. extend Porter's analysis of strategy to include consideradon of environmental strategy. But the analysis of the process of change remains rather limited, and where it is considered, it tends to rely on yet another ÂŠ BlackweU PubUshers Ltd 1997

TIM NEWTON AND GEORGE HARTE

evocation of the language of coqjorate culturalism and excellence. Effective environmental strategic management depends (once more) on 'vision, leadership and ... a broader conception' (Beaumont et al., 1993, p. 46). Similarly, Hutchinson (1992) puts forward a 'strategic framework', but prefaces his prescription by noting that it will only be relevant 'if your vision is similar' (p. 13). Assuming that you do have this 'vision', Hutchinson does admit that there may be some 'barriers to overcome' (p. 13), such as 'colleagues of yours who may remain sceptical' (p. 14). The essential assumption nevertheless is that the 'right vision' will get you through any obstacles in implementing your strategic plan. Yet such arguments appear questionable since there are serious doubts within the corporate strategy literature about the ease with which management vision can be communicated. For example, Coulson-Thomas (1992) draws on three sets of survey data to argue that 'a wide gulf has emerged between [the] rhetoric and reality' of attempts to 'communicate' visions and 'missions' (p. 81). He notes that 'instead of inspiration and motivation there is disillusionment and distrust' (p. 81). Though corporate strategy writers are keen to stress that this is because of 'mistakes' in communicating visions and missions, this literature remains rather strong on prescription, and somewhat limited in evidence of successful communication beyond brief descriptions of supposed 'success stories' (e.g. see ElNamaki, 1992). Some prominent corporate strategy writers have acknowledged that their field tends toward imploration rather than analysis. Thus Johnson notes that strategy 'frameworks have been rather more based on what writers say managers should do rather than observations about how strategies actually come about' (Johnson, 1992, p. 29; original emphasis). But having acknowledged this limitation, Johnson then suggests that the answer lies in attending to corporate culture, and managing strategic change through devices such as 'culture audits' (p. 35). Yet as with the environmental corporate culture proponents, Johnson's prescription makes no acknowledgement of the critical literature which places doubt around the feasibility of culture change. In sum, there is a lack of a critical perspective within current eco-change rationales such as those of environmental strategy and environmental culture. This lack appears conditioned by the evangelical spirit of the literature. It does almost seem as though the evangelists' rush to announce their green business truths has led them to adopt whatever organizational change rationales were to hand, with the result that many were easily enrolled within the seductions of 1980s' discourse, such as that of 'excellence' and its promise to conveniendy marry environmentalism with 'enterprise'. However, the consequence is that we are left with a series of green business arguments which appear incapable of seducing others, in part because they are not 'cannily' enough contrived (see above). Yet at the same time the evangelistic desire to seduce business managers occludes the need for a stronger state regulation in order to coerce business towards greener management. For if you believe that members of organizations will semi-automatically change because they 'must' 'inevitably' do so, you are less likely to feel the need for state coercion toward a green agenda. Furthermore, the promotion of 'environmental excellence' furthers the desire for unregulated markets, since excellence and 'enterprise' promote the image of entrepreneurial employees and consumers who are unfettered by external 'heavy-handed' regulatory controls (see above). ÂŠ BlackweU PubUshers Ltd 1997

GREEN BUSINESS: TECHNICIST KITSCH?

The question remains as to whether existing evangelical rationales will be sufficient to translate organizational actors into the committed green agents that green business writers would clearly like them to be. More specifically is organizational eco-change likely to occur solely on the basis of the voluntary actions of managers, employees and consumers? This remjiins a central question because of its implicit negation by green business writers seemingly devoted to voluntarist solutions. But if we resist their implicit desire for closure around voluntarist solutions, we must attend to the deferred argument that eco-change is only likely to come about through a much stronger agency on the part of the state. From a Derridean perspective, there is a need to attend to the space represented by 'differance'; how, in the present case, state regulation botii differs and is deferred within the confident voluntarism of the current green business discourse (Derrida, 1976). In particular, an argument deferred by the evangelistic desire to seduce is that organizational actors need to be forced (or at least coerced) to 'turn green' rather than being evangelically 'persuaded' to join the 'green church'. In Callon's terms, the attempt at enrolment through seduction masks the altemative enrolment strategy of 'consent without discussion' (Callon, 1986, p. 214). In the remainder of this paper we explore this deferred enrolment strategy, and consider whether state regulation may have more of a role than many green business writers currently acknowledge. QUESTIONING VOLUNTARISM

Even among the few writers who begin to question aspects of voluntarism, there still appears to be an overriding implicit faith in voluntary organizational ecochange. For example, though Welford (1995) is critical of voluntary industry codes of conduct designed to protect the environment (such as the Responsible Care Programme of the UK Chemical Industries Association), he still appears to see the solution as lying with voluntary culture change towards greater accountability and 'new democratic forms of work organization' (p. 49). But as we have seen, environmental culture change is seriously open to question, and it is some time since there were serious moves towards industrial democracy. In this context, a faithful adherence to voluntarist solutions seems surprising. Yet though we wish to question such steadfast voluntarism, we must firstiy acknowledge that voluntarism and legal compulsion do not represent mutually exclusive altematives to the greening of organizations. As Simmons and Cowell (1993) argue, such either/or thinking oversimplifies a more complex situation. State legislation and regulation do not develop out of a vacuum, but relate to changing organizational practice. New practices may develop informally within an industry and later come to define the supposed 'best practice' standard, and such criteria may then feed into state regulation. Furthermore, a fair amount of 'mutual regulation' may occur between companies. Simmons and Cowell (1993) give the example of the waste management industry, 'where customers with arisings of hazardous waste will routinely audit the facilities, management system, and financial probity of a contractor before they will allow them to handle their waste' (p. 360). Such examples suggest that strong state intervention may not be needed since organizations may often regulate each other. ÂŠ BlackweU PubUshers Ltd 1997

TIM NEWTON AND GEORGE HARTE

But there may be a danger in overemphasizing the degree of 'mutual regulation' likely to occur within an industry. For example, current survey data suggest that Simmons and Cowells' examples may represent atypical cases. A Touche Ross (1990) survey found that the large majority of their respondents did not assess the environmental performance of their suppliers, while a survey by Nash (1990) reported that only 6.7 per cent of respondents were motivated to consider organizational eco-change through pressure from their suppliers. On the one hand, one can doubt the reliability of this survey data. But on the other hand, 'supportive' evidence for mutual regulation is either specific to occasional examples within particular industries, or appears rather anecdotal. In consequence, there are still doubts as to the spread of mutual regulation without a more compulsory approach to state regulation. Furthermore, while we need to attend to the interdependence between organizational practice and legislation, there still remain a number of reasons to be cautious, if not pessimistic, in our expectations that organizations will change their practices voluntarily. Even some of the green business evangelists appear rather pessimistic in their expectations of voluntary organizational change. For example. Gray et al. (1993) conclude that 'business as a whole does not believe in the seriousness of the environmental crisis' and 'it is unable to take steps to do anything about it' (p. 302). They point to the duplicity of business environmental groups who, while promoting their green image, are at the same time lobbying on GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) by using arguments about the sanctity of the 'free market' which, as Gray et al. note, are either 'unexamined assertions at best [or] dishonest at worst' (p. 304, fn). Other examples of a seeming duplicity are not too hard to find. Doyle (1991) argues that there is a notable lack of correspondence between the green image successfully created by DuPont (which Elkington and Burke, 1987, include as an example of an environmentally 'excellent' company), and its environmental performance. In a similar vein, a number of accountancy studies suggest that voluntary environmental reporting can be misleading and can help to disguise a poor environmental record (Ingram and Frazier, 1980; Rockness, 1985; Wiseman, 1982).^*^ While such observations reinforce the argument for greater legal compulsion, there are indications that business networks are actively resisting moves towards increased compulsion. For example. Savage and Majot (1992) argue that at the Rio de Janeiro United Nations Earth Summit, the aim of business groupings such as the Intemational Network for Environmental Management (with members including such Elkington-ascribed environmentally excellent companies as Dow Ghemicals and IBM) was precisely to reduce environmental regulations on business. Such business groupings gain access to govemment representatives and United Nations agencies by presenting themselves as representative 'nongovemmental organizations' (NGOs). Yet as Savage and Majot (1992) note, those who see themselves as 'legitimate' NGOs do 'not think greenwashed corporate business organizations fit that [NGO] description' (p. 40). They quote the arguments of Andrew Lees of the UK Friends of the Earth that the 'MBA-quality eco-wrap' of business environmental groups is just a pretence to subvert the environmental agenda and fight off regulatory control. Evidence supportive of such arguments is not too difficult to find. For instance, the Business Gouncil for Sustainable Development (BGSD) includes organizations which have been critiI BlackweU PubUshers Ltd 1997

GREEN BUSINESS: TECHNICIST KITSCH?

cized for engaging in 'greenwashing' (such as DuPont; Doyle, 1991), while a key figure in BCSD, Stephen Schmidheiny, has interests in organizations which have been argued to have a less than exemplary intemational/north-south record, such as Nestle (Savage and Majot, 1992, p. 41). A specific aim of 'The Vision of Sustainable Development' promoted by BCSD is to 'maintain entrepreneurial freedom through voluntary initiatives rather than regulatory coercion' ( S c h m i d h e i n y / B C S D ,

1992, p. 84; emphasis added). Given this clear aim, it is also interesting to note that BCSD supports joint business/government involvement such as the UK govemment Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment, headed by John Collins, chairman of the somewhat environmentally tarnished Shell UK (Schmidheiny/BCSD, 1992, p. 89). BCSD rationalize the need for 'free' business leadership on the grounds that environmentalism is simply best left to business: Responses to pressures about environmental quality have often been reactive and involuntary, largely defined by others through laws, regulations, and consumer pressure ... It is time for businesses to take the lead, because the control of change by business is less painful, more efficient, and cheaper for consumers, for governments, and for businesses themselves. (Schmidheiny/BCSD, 1992, p. 83) Once again we have the image of the business manager as an 'eco-hero(ine)' who must be allowed to voluntarily get on with the job if s/he is to produce the goods which govemment unsuccessfully aims at through 'heavy-handed' regulation. In this context it is perhaps not surprising that some critical voices have argued that 'green business tends merely to perpetuate the colonization of the mind, sapping our visions of an altemative and giving the idea that our salvation can be gained through shopping rather than through social struggle and transformation' (Plant and Albert, 1991, p. 7). As an example of such colonization. Plant and Albert cite the case of the environmentally 'renowned' The Body Shop which 'is, after all, in the cosmetics business, and who needs cosmetics anyway when much of the world's population is hungry and starving' (p. 3). Some may criticize such suggestions on the grounds that their radicalism ignores a 'market reality' wherein consumer demand for cosmetics is unlikely to go away (and in any case. The Body Shop's products appear to focus more on soaps and shampoos than cosmetics). Yet once again, it is not too difficult to marshal evidence in favour of the 'greenwashing' argument. As Simmons and Wynne (1992, 1994) note, voluntary audit frameworks such as BS7750 represent a documentation system that 'says nothing about what actually happens to chemicals and wastes, etcetera' (Simmons and Lynne, 1994, p. 16): When awarded to a company, certification under the [BS7750] standard wall confirm that an EMS [environmental management system] is in operation and is being complied with. The content of the system is determined by a policy statement which describes its objectives. In theory, these objectives could aim no higher than regulatory compliance, the legal minimum, yet the company would still merit certification. (Simmons and Wynne, 1994, p. 16) In addition there is no obligation under BS7750 for organizations to publish ÂŠ BlackweU Publishers Ltd 1997

TIM NEWTON AND GEORGE HARTE

either policy objectives or the results of evaluation, with the consequence that they cannot be subject to outside scrutiny and therefore present little serious challenge to current corporate notions of accountability. And even if there are voluntary disclosures, it is important to bear in mind that these will be in relation to the objectives set by the organization and based on what it considers to be suitable environmental accounting and management (see also our note 4). In effect there is no outcome-related standard within BS7750, and it is perfectly feasible for an organization to adopt BS7750 and do very little about their environmental performance. Yet at the same time the image of environmental audit creates an appearance of 'objective' greenness which masks the social construction of environmental data. As Power (1991) points out: 'The technical possibility of knowing the environmental effects of certain corporate actions is subject to considerable selectivity and bias and the articulation of environmental risk is by no means a simple or value-free matter' (p. 35). Drawing on Barnes (1985), Power argues that definitions of environmental risk and management are socially constructed and open to competing plausible interpretations. At present environmental audit has been written within an accounting framework which encourages conservatism and is often inimical to questioning the 'existing relations of accountability that sustain corporate practice' (Power, 1991, p. 38). In consequence, 'far from being a pressure for fundamental change to corporate practice, environmental audit may therefore become a sophisticated compliance exercise' (Power, 1991, p. 38). Such limitations of voluntarism add weight to arguments for further state intervention. But addressing such arguments necessitates moving beyond the voluntarism of the green business literature to areas of discourse which have directly considered regulation issues. For instance, among environmental economists there has been considerable debate over both the need for state intervention, and the form it might take. Though a detailed analysis of this debate is beyond the scope of this paper, we shall try to provide some brief indicators of the choices available. At one extreme are the neo-liberal arguments of those favouring 'free market environmentalism'. For example, Anderson and Leal (1991) argue that all state intervention represents an unacceptable interference with the market. As an altemative to such intervention, they propose that the environment is protected by individuals suing anyone who environmentally degrades their land or property. But as Lewis (1992, p. 182) notes, 'this vision is not merely anticommunal but actually antisocial', and it also conveniently overlooks the argument that different 'citizens' have different degrees of access to legal support (e.g. multinationals versus say, 'New Age' travellers). Yet it is not that far from the arguments of groups such as the Business Council for Sustainable Development (see above) who, in arguing that environmental protection is best left solely to business, also implicitly support exactly the kind of laissezfairism outlined by Anderson and Leal (since individual action becomes the only form of legal redress). In a similar fashion, the voluntarism implicitly accepted by much of the green business literature is largely consistent with free market environmentalism. Set against free market environmentalism are various possibilities for state intervention. One option is to make environmental audit programmes sueh as the EU's EMA scheme and BS7750 legally compulsory but, as noted above, they Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1997

GREEN BUSINESS: TECHNICIST KITSGH?

currently represent paper systems which have a debatable relationship with environmental outcomes. A more coercive altemative might be to combine greater legal compulsion with audit systems which were more outcome-oriented. Yet even this altemative does not necessarily imply that we can easily formulate good indicators of a firm's environmental record, since outcome measures can still be subject to considerable 'creative' environmental accounting. However, other possibilities for state intervention do exist elsewhere through the use of either legal or market mechanisms. For example, audit schemes might be left as voluntary programmes, but more coercive pressures could be exerted through the use of greater legal restraint (in the form of strong fines for the discharge of specific pollutants beyond low limits) or market mechanisms such as effluent taxes. While there is a considerable debate among environmental economists over the merit of these varying approaches, their commonality is that they all imply some form of coercive intervention, and can appear preferable to voluntarism within a market subject to few environmental restraints. On the one hand, legislation is unlikely to ensure 100 per cent compliance, and taxes may be only partially effective. Yet on the other hand arguments for voluntarism do not appear persuasive when they are largely based on the premise that 'business knows best'. Such arguments do not appear 'sustainable' when even some supposed 'environmentally excellent' companies have a far less than exemplary track record. Furthermore, we would agree with Plant and Albert (1991) that if business environmental groups do 'hijack' the environmental agenda, the terms of environmentalism are likely to be constrained, with the danger of a rather limited consideration of the choices posed by, say, 'surface' versus 'deep' green altematives.

CONGLUSION

Our paper has attempted to document salient features of current green business literature, most notably its strident evangelism, and its rather uncritical adoption of popular organizational change strategies. On the one hand this evangelism can be seen as a means of emotionally enrolling organizational actors, capturing their hearts in advance of their minds. Yet on the other, this rhetorical strategy is open to the charge that it is unlikely to provide much of a 'hook' by which to enrol business managers. At the same time, green business evangelists appear to fall foul of their own rhetoric in appearing to believe that their eco-change rationales will work because they 'must' do, since managers 'will have to act' etc. Finally, in fostering an image of organizational actors who will voluntarily act because they 'have to', evangelism can also be seen as one tactic in deferring consideration of the need for stronger state intervention. Such deferment receives further support from writers promoting environmental 'excellence', given the associations between excellence, enterprise and deregulation. The salience of state regulation is also heightened because: (1) there are indications of greenwashing; (2) existing voluntary schemes such as BS7750 require minimal compliance to gain certification; and (3) there are suggestions that 'environmental' business groupings are concemed to write state regulation off the agenda. ÂŠ BlackweU PubUshers Ltd 1997

TIM NEWTON AND GEORGE HARTE

Yet for all the question marks around the efficacy of green business evangelism, it can still be seen as a productive incitement to discourse if only because its lack of critical analysis suggests a discursive territory ripe for colonization (this paper can be seen as an opportunistic response to this lack). Though there are only limited signs elsewhere that writers concemed with organizational analysis are tuming to environmental matters (one early example is Gladwin, 1993), there is evidence of increasing research attention (e.g. Fineman, 1996). In consequence, one might expect that green business will increasingly become part of the mainstream agenda of writers within organization studies, organizational sociology, critical accounting etc. The question remains, however, as to whether 'criticjd' work will be any more successful than 'evangelical' work in influencing green debates and environmentally related actions. The former does have the advantage that it may lead to more persuasive arguments simply because they are more critically thought through. Critical work may also be more effective through its creation of a 'serious' discourse which may attract larger groups of academics towards its study since it is more cannily crafted. Yet though power may be linked, if not ineluctably, to knowledge, we would not expect either evangelical or critical work to lead to seismic shifts in the green agenda, at least in the short term. To do so, one would need an almost evangelical faith in the ability of such work to translate members of institutional networks as various as environmental business groupings, transnational corporations, govemment and inter-governmental agencies, environmental pressure groups, environmental consultancies, other academic disciplines etc. Finally, we do acknowledge that in our own attention to environment2il issues we may be accused of swallowing the evangelist's message. Have we not also been enrolled by the networks surrounding environmental science, if not those of green business writers? Furthermore, should we not ÂŁilso doubt the sacred tenant of the green faith, namely that an environmental Armageddon is just around the comer? Yet we have difficulty in pursuing this doubt and so committing the ultimate act of green heresy. For though there have been many imminent Armageddons in the past, we find it hard to entirely dismiss the possibility of this one. To this extent, we at least have been enrolled.

NOTES *We would like to express our thanks to Roh Gray, Michael Power, Peter Simmons, and the referees of the JMS for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper. [1] Nevertheless there are differences hetween the two. For example, BS7750 focuses more on management systems, while the EMA scheme places greater emphasis on performance reporting, and employs extemal verification of audited reporting (Shimell, 1994). In addition, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has been developing its series 14000 standards on environmental management. Although similar to the EMA scheme and BS7750 in being voluntary, the development of the ISO standards points to the tension hetween the EU verification emphasis and the desire for self-certification (particularly from the USA and Japan). [2] We are aware that we are heing somewhat cavalier in our reference to the Foucauldian work of Rose and Miller, given that our own analyses present more of a ÂŠ Blackwell PubUshers Ltd 1997

GREEN BUSINESS: TECHNICIST KITSCH?

stress on human agency than is generally witnessed in Foucauldian studies. Discussion of such theoretical differences cannot, however, be accommodated within this paper, but are discussed elsewhere (Newton, 1994, 1996a, 1996c). [3] The phrase 'on your bike' derives from the comments of a U K govemment minister of the 1980s who suggested that the unemployed should 'get on their bikes' and move to wherever they could find work. [4] The growing interest in environmental reporting needs to be subject to critical examination. Although it is recognized that environmental reporting may satisfy the interests of certain groups (Elkington, 1993; UNEP/Sustainability, 1994), there nevertheless remain a number of questions with regard to its validity. For example, there is often a lack of adequate financial data and also a failure to integrate environmenteil reports with the main corporate annual reports and accounts (Bebbington, 1993). Furthermore, environmental reporting increases concems over the 'accountingizadon' of this field (Power and Laughlin, 1992).

REFERENCES ACKROYD, S. and CROWDY, P. A. (1990). 'Can culture be managed? Working with "raw" material: the case of English slaughterman'. Personnel Review, 19, 5, 3-13. ALVESSON, M . and BERG, P. O . (1992). Corporate Culture and Organizatiorml Symbolism: An Overview. Berlin: de Gruyter. AMANO, H . (1992). 'Environmental protection at Tokyo Electric power company'. Long Range Planning, 2 5 , 4, 4. ANDERSON, P. and LEAL, D . (1991). Free Market Environmentalism. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. BARNES, B . (1985). About Science. Oxford: Blackwell. BEAUMONT, J. R., PEDERSEN, L . M . and WHITAKER, B . D . (1993). Managing the Environment-

Business Opportunity and Responsibility. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. BEBBINGTON, J . (1993). 'Coming clean: Corporate environmental reporting'. Social and Environmental Accounting, 13, 2, 13â&#x20AC;&#x201D;14. BUSINESS IN THE ENVIRONMENT (1992). A Measure of Commitment- Guidelines for Managing Environmental Performance. London: Business in the Environment and KPMG Peat Marwick. CALLENBACH, E . , CAPRA, F . , GOLDMAN, L . , LUTZ, R . and MARBURG, S . (1993). EcoManage-

ment: The Ebnwood Guide to Ecological Auditing and Sustainable Business. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler. CALLON, M . (1986). 'Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of scallops and the fisherman of St Brieuc Bay'. In Law, J. (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief. London: Routledge & Kegan PauL CALLON, M . (1991). 'Techno-economic networks and irreversibility'. In Law, J . (Ed.), A Sociology of Monsters; Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Roudedge. CLARK, P. (1993). Regulation to Registration: The Government's Proposals for Implementing the EC Eco-Management and Audit.Scheme. London: Department of the Environment, Environmental Protection and Industry Division. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1992). Proposal for a Council Regulation

allowing voluntary participation by companies in the industrial sector in a Community Eco-audit scheme. C O M (91) 459 final, Brussels, 5 March 1992. COULSON-THOMAS, C . (1992). 'Strategic vision or strategic con?: rhetoric or reality'. Long Range Planning, 2 5 , T , - 8 1 - 9 . DAVIS, J. (1991). Greening Business: Managing for Sustainable Development. Oxford: Blackwell. DEAL, T . E . and KENNEDY, A. A. (1982). Corporate Cultures. Reading, MA: AddisonÂŠ BlackweU Publishers Ltd 1997

TIM NEWTON AND GEORGE HARTE

Wesley. DELAMARTER, R . T . (1988). Big Blue: IBM's Use and Abuse of Power. London: Pan Books. DERRIDA, J. (1976). Of Grammatobgy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. DOYLE, J. (1991). Hold the Applause! A Case Study of CorporaU Environmentalism as Practiced DuPont. Washington, DC: Friends ofthe Earth. ELKINGTON, J. (1993). 'Coming clean: the rise and rise of the corporate environmental report'. Business StraUgy and the Environment, 2, 2. ELKINGTON, J. and BURKE, T . (1987). TTie Green Capitalists: Industry's Search for Environmen Excellence. London: Victor Gollancz. EL-NAMAKI, M . S . S . (1992). 'Creating a corporate vision'. Long Range Planning, 2 5 6 25-9. FERGUSON, K . E . (1993). The Man Question: Visions of Subjectivity in Feminist Theory. Berkele University of Califomia Press. FINEMAN, S. (1996). 'Emotional subtexts in corporate greening'. Organization Studies 17 3 479-500. FOMBRUN, C . J. (1983). 'Corporate culture, environment and strategy'. Human Resources Management, 22, 139-52. FOUCAULT, M . (1981). The Histopi of Sexuality, Vol. I. Harmondsworth: Penguin. GERGEN, K . J. (1992). 'Organization theory in the postmodem era'. In Reed, M. and Hughes, M. (Eds), Rethinking Organization. London: Sage, 207-26. GILBERT, M . (1994). 'BS7750 and the EU eco-management and audit regulation'. EcoManagement and Auditing, 1, 2, 6-10. GLADWIN, T . (1993). 'The meaning of greening: a plea for organizational theory'. In Fischer, K. and Schot, J. (Eds), Environmental Strategies for Industry. Washington, DC: Island Press. GRAY, R . H . and COLUSON, D . J. (1991). 'Environmental audit: green gauge or whitewash?'. Managerial Auditing, 6, 5, 17-25. GRAY, R . H . and SYMON, I. W. (1992). 'An environmental audit by any other name'. Integrated Environmental Management, No. 6, February, 9 - 1 1 . GRAY, R . H . , BEBBINGTON, J. and WALTERS, D . (1993). Accounting for the Environment.

London: Paul Chapman. HASSARD, J. and PARKER, M . (Eds) (1993). Postmodemism and Organizations. London: Sage. HILLARY, R . (1993). The Eco-Management and Audit Scheme: A Practical Guide. Letchworth: Technical Communications. HOCHSCHILD, A. (1983). The Managed Heart- Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of Califomia Press. HoLLWAY, W. (1991). Work Psychology and Organizational Behaviour. London: Sage. HUTCHINSON, C . (1992). 'Corporate strategy and the environment'. Long Ranee Planning 25, 4, 4 and 9 - 2 1 . INGRAM, R . W . and FRAZIER, K . B . (1980). 'Environmental performance and corporate disclosure'. Joumal of Accounting Research, 18, 2, 614-22. INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (1989). Environmental Auditing. Paris: ICC. INTERNATIONAL

INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (IISD)/DELonTE

TOUGHE

(1992). Business Strategy for Sustainable Development- Leadership and Accountability for the Winnipeg: USD. JOHNSON, G . (1992). 'Managing strategic change - strategy, culture and action'. Long Range Planning, 25, 1, 28-36. KuNDA, G. (1991). Engineering Culture, Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation. P ladelphia: Temple University Press. KUNDERA, M . (1984). The Unbearable Lightness of Being. New York: Harper & Row. LATOUR, B . (1988). 'The politics of explanation - an altemative'. In Woolgar, S. (Ed.), Knowledge and R^exivity: Mew Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Sage. ÂŠ BlackweU PubUshers Ltd 1997

GREEN BUSINESS: TECHNICIST KITSCH?

LEWIS, M . W . (1992). Green Delusions: An Environmental Critique of Radical Environmentalism. London: Duke University Press. MCGREGOR, D . (1960). The Human Side of the Enterprise. New York: Harper & Row. MICHAEL, M . (1996). Constructing Identities. London: Sage. MILLER, P. and ROSE, N . (1990). 'Goveming economic life'. Economy and Society, 19, 1, 1-31. NASH, T . (1990). 'Green about the environment?'. Director, February, 4 0 - 7 . NEWTON, T . J. (1994). 'Discourse and agency: the example of personnel psychology and "assessment centres"'. Organization Studies, 15, 6, 879-902. NEWTON, T . J. (1995). 'The pick n' mix stall: recruiting, deploying and embedding consultancy expertise in a life insurance company'. University of Edinburgh, Department of Business Studies, Working Paper Series. NEWTON, T . J. (1996a). 'Agency and discourse: recruiting consultants in a life insurance company'. Sociology, 30, 4. NEWTON, T . J. (1996b). 'Postmodernism and action'. Organization, 3, 1, 7-29. NEWTON, T . J. (1996c). 'Resocialising the subject? A re-reading of Grey's "Career as a project ofthe self...'. Sociology, 30, 1, 137-44. NORTH, K . (1992). Environmental Business Management- An Introduction. Geneva: Intemational Labour Office. OGBONNA, E . (1993). 'Managing organizadonal culture: fantasy or reality?'. Human Resource Management Joumal, 3, 2, 42-54. OGBONNA, E . and WILKINSON, B . (1990). 'Corporate strategy and corporate culture: the view from the checkout'. Personnel Review, 19, 4, 9 - 1 5 . PARKER, M . (1992). 'Post-modem organizations or postmodem organization theory'. Organization Studies, 13, 1-17. PETERS, T . and WATERMAN, R . H . (1982). In Search of Excellence. NY: Harper & Row. PLANT, C . and ALBERT, D . H . (1991). 'Green business in a gray world: can it be done? An introduction'. In Plant, C. and Plant, J. (Eds), Green Business: Hope or Hoax? Bideford: Green Books. POWER, M . (1991). 'Auditing and environmentalism expertise: between protest and professionalisadon'. Accounting Auditing and Accountability Joumal, 4, 30-42. POWER, M . and LAUGHUN, R . (1992). 'Cridcal theory and accoundng'. In Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (Eds), Critical Management Studies. London: Sage. RoCKNESS, J. (1985). 'An assessment ofthe relationship between US corporate environmental performance and disclosure'. Joumal of Business Finance and Accounting, 12, 3, 339-54. RODDICK, A. (1992). 'In search ofthe sustainable business'. Ecodedsion, December, 7 1 - 3 . ROSE, N . (1989). 'Governing the enterprising self. Paper presented at the Conference on the Values of the Enterprise Culture, University of Lancaster, September. ROSE, N . and MiLUiR, P. (1992). 'Polidcal power beyond the state: problematics of government'. British Joumal of Sodobgy, 43 173-205. SAVAGE, J. A. and MAJOT, J. M. (1992). 'Industry preaches green but is far from clean'. Business and Society Review, Fall, 39-42. SCHMIDHEINY,

S./BCSD

(BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT) (1992).

Changing Course: A Global Perspective on Development and the Environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. SCHOT, J. and FISCHER, K . (1993). 'Introduction: The greening ofthe industrial firm'. In Fischer, K. and Schot J. (Eds), Environmental Strategies for Industry. Washington, DC: Island Press. SHIMELL, P. (1994). 'The reladonship between eco-audit and environmental management systems'. Eco-Management and Auditing, 1, 2, 17—21. SILVER, J. (1987). 'The ideology of excellence: management and neo-conservatism'. Studies in Political Economy, 24, 1, 105-29. © BlackweU Publishers Ltd 1997

TIM NEWTON AND GEORGE HARTE

SIMMONS, P. and COWELL, J. (1993). 'liability for the environment - lessons from the development of civil liability in Europe'. In Jackson, T. (Ed.), Clean Production Sti'ategies: Developing Preventive Environmental Management in the Industrial Economy. Boca Raton: Lew Publishers. SIMMONS, P. and WYNNE, B . (1992). 'Responsible care: tmst credibility, and environmental management'. In Fischer, K. and Schot, J. (Eds), Enmronmental Strategies for Industry. Washington, DC: Island Press. SIMMONS, P. and WYNNE, B . (1994). 'State, market . . . and mutual regulation? Socio-economic dimensions of the environmental regulation of business'. Unpublished paper. Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University. SMIRCICH, L . (1983). 'Concepts of culture and organizational analysis'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2 8 , 3, 339-58. SMITH, P. B. and PETERSON, M . E . (1988). Leadership. Organizations and Culture. London: Sage. STEAD, W . E . and STEAD, J. G. (1992). Management for a Small Planet- Sti'ategic Decision Making and the Environment. Newhury Park, CA: Sage. STEGER, U . (1993). 'The greening of the board-room: how German companies are dealing with environmental issues'. In Fischer, K. and Schot, J. (Eds), Environmental Strategies for Industry. Washington, DC: Island Press. THOMPSON, P. and MCHUGH, D . (1990). Work Organisations. London: Macmillan. TOUCHE ROSS (1990). Head in the Clouds or Head in the Sand? UK Managers' Attitudes to Environmental Issues: A Survey. London: Touche Ross. UNEP (UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT

PROGRAMME)/SUSTAINABIUTY

(1994). Company

Environmental Reporting: A Measure of the Progress of Business and Industry Towards Sustainab Development. Paris: UNEP. WELFORD, R . (1995). Environmental Strategy and Sustainable Development The Corporate Challe for the 21st Century. London: Roudedge. WiLLMOTT, H. (1993). 'Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom; managing culture in modem organizations'. Joumal of Management Stiidies, 30, 515-52. WILSON, D . G . (1992). A Stirategy of Change. London: Roudedge. WISEMAN, J. (1982). 'An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate annual reports'. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7, 1, 53-63.

1 BlackweU PubUshers Ltd 1997