The Environment in Question

This paper critically explores some of the key assertions of the green business literature. It draws upon the author's theoretical and empirical work on the politics and practice of green consultants, managers and environmental regulators to examine the way the natural environment is socially constructed and contested. The rhetorics and discourses of key players are examined and conclusions are presented on how environmental research and practice may best proceed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A favoured picture of the green business literature, both academic and policy, since the 1970s goes something like this: • As an organization, you have to be green. It’s your social responsibility to be so; it’s ethically correct and it makes good business sense – it’s really a win-win scenario. • Sustainability is the major goal. Your businesses must be conducted in a manner that preserves and conserves. So your environmental responsibilities must extend beyond the factory gate to your supply chain and across national borders. • Being light green, or weak green, is not enough. If you insist on only cosmetic changes then the regulator will get you, your customers and shareholders will desert you, and the community will rise up against you. Typically, these prescriptions take their rhetorical form and force from two major assumptions. The first is that that the natural environment is ‘out there’. It, and its quality, can be objectified and measured in many ways by important scientists – biologists, climatologists, botanists, ecologists, marine specialists, health professionals. While not always being in agreement, the picture these people present is generally a sobering one. It includes global warming, deforestation, urban air pollution, poor water quality, loss of marine life, floods and famine. The positivist