Radical ecological criticism and BD
Claire-Isabelle Roquebert
Summary
Since the end of the 20th century, the rise of environmental scandals has led to an increase in initiatives related to corporate social responsibility (CSR). The ambitions of CSR are revolutionary in a capitalist context, and even companies acknowledge that their responsibility is not only an economic one but also an environmental (and social) one. Nevertheless, beyond rhetoric, CSR very often remains limited to an administrative tool: risk management, communication and image strategies, and marketing plans. The initial ambitions often end up in marginal issues that do not change how the company functions: the priority is still the accumulation of profit, in accordance with capitalist logic. What is it that keeps the compromise between economy and ecology from stabilising in the first place? To answer this question, the study investigated how companies that are intensively committed to nature perceive and implement CSR. The interviewees were employees and managers of Côteaux Nantais and Body Nature, two small and medium-sized French enterprises committed to biodynamics. In addition, the study was complemented by document analysis. The research produced the following findings.
The tensions between economy and ecology arise from two different perceptions of the relationship between nature and humans. In many Western countries, humans are regarded as separate from and superior to nature. From the company's point of view, nature is consequently reduced to its function as a "resource". The company tries to optimise, manage, and standardise nature (humans tend to be considered human resources as well). To this end, the company prefers a "functionalist" organisation, i.e. a pyramid-shaped structure optimised by industrial processes and oriented toward an economic goal and reputation maintenance. In this context, CSR represents a strategy that aims to protect and care for nature, but only to generate a better reputation and increase the competitiveness of the company.
In biodynamics – as in other ecological movements – the human being belongs to nature, an ecosystem connecting living beings. Nature is "alive" and therefore changeable. The organisation must be able to adapt to natural fluctuations and consider the uniqueness and diversity of living beings (including humans) that are necessary for ecological balance. Consequently, the ecological form of organisation prefers a networked system structure, not hierarchical but evolutionary, in which the uniqueness of each participant guides the enterprise. CSR is not a particular strategy of the company but a purpose, and business once again becomes a tool in the service of that purpose. The "ecological" organisation challenges the growth imperative and competitive relationships. The study outlines the tools, organisational forms, and conditions for the emergence of such an enterprise.
Conclusion
The two organisational models, functionalist and ecological, can be seen as two ideal types which often conflict with each other and between which there are a variety of hybrid organisations. Ultimately, the ecological question is not fundamentally an ethical question about how to better respect nature. It is an "ontological" question in that it challenges our definition of nature and humanity. Anthropologist Philippe Descola has shown that the Western conception of nature is neither universal nor the most widespread. According to his research, the current ecological crisis is a symptom of the dualism of nature and culture being challenged in the West. The crisis, he says, arises not only from outrage over environmental scandals but also from the lived experience of a relationship with nature in which humans recognise themselves as what makes them human: a being of nature.