Ecological modernisation, also known as eco-restructuring, emerged in the

West in the mid-1950 due to increased ecological crisis which developed

side by side with the growth in the economy. It was a response to the radical environmental
movement that has developed in Europe which is perceived as an ‘improved‘ version of
sustainable development. The scholars that supported ecological modernisation believed
that environmental reform could take place only through further industrialisation. They
believed that ecological modernisation would lead to efficient use of natural resources and
less emission of pollution.

Ecological modernisation theory:

Ecological modernization, according to Arthur Mol, can be defined as the growing
independence or autonomy of ecological perspective and the emergence of ecological
rationality as the basis of production and consumption. In other words, it means the growing
institutionalisation of ecological rationality in the domain of economic.This institutionalisation
gets manifested in social practices and institutional developments.
For Joseph Huber, the ecological switchover would take place through innovative
technologies that would benefit the environment; he makes it clear that ecological
modernisation belongs to industrial society theory.

Globalisation and anti-globalisation:

The emergence of globalisation weakens state institutions, impacting environmental reform.
Neo-Marxist scholars argue that unchecked global capitalism will destroy the sustenance
base of production and consumption, leading to the destruction of the capitalist economic
order. This destruction is known as the "second contradiction of capitalism." Mol attributed
the popularity of the treadmill of production theory to the emergence of globalisation
suggests that economic growth and expansion are inherent in the global capitalist economy.
ultimately destroying the sustenance base of production and consumption.

Ecological modernization v/s treadmill of production:

● Arthur Mol compares ecological modernisation theory and the treadmill of production
theory, arguing that ecological modernisation scholars favour environmental
radicalism over social radicalism due to the belief that substantial, small changes can
be made, while radical change might not being environmentally beneficial.
● Ecological modernisation theorists view changes in capitalist production and
consumption as relative rather than absolute, focusing on environmental reform and
improvement. They advocate for incremental change at the production and
consumption level.
● Ecological modernisation theory views institutional and social changes as structural,
while the treadmill of production theory views them as temporary improvements.
Ecological modernization theorists link changes in production and consumption to
environmental improvement, while the treadmill of production theory's destructive
nature contradicts its proponents' countervailing strategies. Mol found neo-Marxists'
suggestions for environmental improvement highly utopian.
● Mol observed that ecological modernisation theorists deal with conventional
environmental problems like water pollution, solid waste, etc., which are local and
national in nature; whereas treadmill scholars deals with high risk environmental
 problems like climate change, ozone layer depletion, etc., which are regional and
global in nature

Political Modernisation:
Arthur Mol suggests that political modernisation, influenced by the Multilateral Environmental
Agreement (MEA), can help tame global capitalism by promoting environmental protection.
MEAs aim to establish a common law and policy principle, leading to universal
environmental law and policy. Mol also suggests that regional institutions like the European
Union (EU) should prioritise environmental protection for economic integration, paving the
way for global governance on environmental issues. Additionally, supra-national institutions
like the European Commission, European Parliament, and European Court of Justice can
effectively counter environmental degradation where member states or transnational
companies are directly involved.

Market Induced Environmental Reform:

Market-induced environmental reform can bring market induced environmental
reform can be carried out across the globe through the logic and rationality of
the market. It's influenced by political decisions, civil pressures, and citizen-consumer
demand. Market-induced environmental reform is still in its nascent stage and it can become
ambivalent due to different economic interests, especially when developed countries design
environmental standards and underdeveloped countries are excluded.

Dialectics of market and politics:

Global capital which may be mobile, is localised due to the presence of economic actors and
mechanisms within markets. This localization allows for political legitimization at both
national and international levels, enabling market existence and environmental scrutiny. The
market's localised nature is crucial for its functioning

Global Civil Society:

● Mol suggests that the success or failure of the environmental movement is
influenced by global actors' locations and economic stages. Leaders of
transnational industries and neo-liberal scholars view civil society's growing
power as a counter movement, while environmental activists, social scientists,
and political commentators are more cautious and sceptical.
● Mol argues that civil society plays a crucial role in gaining support against
global capitalism, while those who support it overstate its strength and power,
leading the environmental movement and legitimising backlash against the
green movement.
● Mol highlights the divergent perspective in evaluating the environmental
movement, stating that developed countries like OECD countries experience
an increasing environmental movement and consciousness, while developing
countries like Sub-Saharan Africa experience scattered or poorly integrated
environmental movements and consciousness.
● Mol argued that environmental movements and discourses should not be
seen as a global network of local NGOs or a common reference frame.
Environmental priorities vary across countries, and these movements are
shaped by locality, history, and traditions.
Global Environmentalism:
Mol states that global environmentalism is gaining momentum as environmental ethics and
principles are applied globally. Monitoring of TNCs and institutions, communication, and
sanctions against violators have expanded beyond local boundaries. Mol identifies a rise in
global sub-politics in the environmental movement due to nation-states losing control,
scientists no longer having monopoly over scientific proof, and increased transparency
leading to civil society protests and increased consultations with stakeholders, resulting in
global environmental politics and governance.

Criticism:
While Mol argues that ecological modernisation theory brings the environment back into the
fold of social theory, Buttel critiques ecological modernisation theory as not well-developed
social theory as it is shaped by broader political and economic factors. He criticises
ecological modernisation for its Eurocentric perspective, excessive emphasis on
non-renewal sectors, and focus on efficiency and pollution control, neglecting environmental
impact.

Hannigan criticises ecological modernisation theory for its unflappable technological

optimism, suggesting that environmental problems can be solved through
super-industrialisation. He argues that silicon chips and nuclear technology are not
environmentally neutral and have their own risks. Schnaiberg critiques ecological
modernisation, arguing it differs from treadmill theory due to its sampling approach, which
focuses on cutting-edge technology or best practice industries, assuming change will
eventually occur.

Conclusion:
Ecological modernisation assumes that institutions are malleable and industrial capitalism
has the technological capabilities to bring about eco-efficiencies‖ or improved sustainable
development. It was a response to the radical environmental movement that has developed
in Europe and it gave autonomy of ecological perspective and the emergence of ecological
rationality as the basis of production and consumption. In other words, it means the growing
institutionalisation of ecological rationality in the domain of economics.