Part Two: Framing the Argument within the Appropriate Micro Context
The Networked Environmental Sector
The environmental sector is information driven. Understanding the human impact on environmental change requires the monitoring of complex ecosystems with advanced technologies, and then further using those technologies to process and manage the information in a way that is conducive to achieving one’s objectives. Herein lies the power of environmental networks. The vast amounts of sorted data—only recently made available by the power of technological breakthrough—are only sortable and manageable through the networking of this political space, so much so that governments have proven ineffective in governing this space not just because of political differences but because they lack the specialized knowledge to regulate the space. They have more often sought out other actors for their expertise and technological prowess rather than manage environmental issues independently. In doing so, they opened up political space for a diversity of non-state actors to form separate networks aimed at affecting change in this space—apart from states. These non-state actors include environmental NGOs, private environmental governors, and industry.
Environmental NGOs (ENGOs) serve their constituencies by providing expertise and applying such to serve as stewards (or protectors) of the environment. To an eco-conscious citizenry, this brings them a great deal of symbolic power—as protectors of the environment. The power that this brings is not vested in only a select few actors but rather across the ENGO network. Within this network, like actors share information, collaborate on projects and operations, attend and observe the same summits and conferences, and oftentimes even share funding to achieve common objectives. Due to this overlap, and because they leverage advanced communication technologies to communicate, they are tightly connected into what is deemed by this book an environmental preservation network. Power flows through this network as the distinct nodes bring attention to their cause by processing complex data on environmental damage and then broadcasting these findings to mass audiences. For example, natural disasters, or, more so, man-made environmental disasters (i.e., oil spills, toxic chemical spills), present opportunities that must be seized upon by these groups to spread their message broadly and quickly. Yet not only are the primary and secondary effects of these disasters extremely difficult to interpret and project, but, moreover, local events are oftentimes undecipherable by global organizations. As a result, these groups branch out into cooperative relationships with other concerned actors, operating within networks to provide input, but also maintain local branches so as to understand local needs and problems. The authority of these groups comes from their ability to use the information attained to shape the public discourse in a way that influences the wider public toward preservation, and the practices that promote what they consider preservation. Yet this entire process is only possible through the technologies that facilitate mass communication.
Additionally, because of the dynamic nature of environmental events, this network is highly decentralized. Hierarchical structures cannot manage such complexity in an efficient manner, and therefore a decentralized network is the more effective form of political organization. Hierarchies require centralized command and control, with action items only being acted upon after several layers have authorized action. This cumbersome approach has worked historically because information was limited, and thus more easily controlled. However, in today’s information society, where technology has allowed for the rapid spread of highly complex and evolving information, such cumbersome approaches to dealing with information are highly limited. As complex information spreads rapidly and prompts distinct responses across vast networks, governing actors are better prepared to deal with responses through decentralizing power. This allows independent nodes of the network to formulate and tailor responses to evolving political dynamics.
It is much the same for industry. Industry services the material demands of modern consumer society. In such a capacity they are consistently pursuing new markets, resource bases, and more cost-effective methods for managing global supply chains. Due to the dynamic nature of such tasks, industry also relies on decentralized networks for more efficient operations. Even though the corporations themselves are hierarchically oriented in most cases, they have outsourced much of their functionality by entering into networks that provide essential services in the form of extensive supply chains. Each node in the network (or actor operating along the supply chain) provides a critical task, with many leveraging advanced technological processes, based on information processing, to carry out their specified tasks efficiently.
However, in carrying out such processes in the search for greater efficiencies, industry is being increasingly scrutinized over how they are impacting the environment. Such scrutiny can oftentimes affect their image. This image—in an information society that is networked and where information can be moved across broad networks instantaneously—is constantly under threat. A tarnished image under such circumstances can present an existential threat to an industrial actor. Therefore, image is a high priority for such actors.
While these two networks have similar interests—being seen as stewards over the environment—they have vastly different means by which they achieve that. ENGOs have a far more restrictive view of what forms of practice should be considered sustainable in light of a fragile environment, while industry has a far more liberal approach that focuses on profitability and competitiveness rather than any particular environmental exigencies. These positions will be explained in depth in chapter 3. The general point to be made here, however, is that these differences foreclose in many ways the possibility for cooperation. Therefore, the networks formed by these actors are separate, even though they exist within the same political sector. This reality generates conflict that must be settled politically. As states have pulled back from regulating in the global environmental sector, private governors attempting to serve as network connectors have emerged. These private actors seek to govern broadly, not merely to influence individualized outcomes. However, because these private actors lack the material power of states to enforce regulations, they must seek alternative means of regulation. They do so by first constructing a discourse that places them in positions of authority. From this position they then generate authority in two key ways: First, they construct a discourse around which actors across networks can converge. This gives them the authority to establish what is considered acceptable and what is not, and ultimately to construct rules to enforce these behavioral requirements. Second, they can transfer symbolic power across networks. In the cases under examination in this book, this symbolic power comes in the form of transferring the symbol of environmental NGOs as protectors of the environment to industrial actors in the form of an eco-label. In reverse order, it provides ENGOs symbolic power as they are seen as being effective at changing the behavior of industrial actors toward more sustainable outcomes.
Without network connectors such transfers of symbolic power would not be possible. The extensive organizational structures, specialized expertise, and overall capacity necessary to provide this function (at scale) are beyond the scope of individual actors within each of these separate networks. Moreover, the two sides of the network operate and speak in distinct codes, which makes the establishment of any permanent connection highly improbable. This disconnect presents network connectors with an opportunity to step in and play an essential role toward establishing and maintaining this connection. Network connectors thus not only serve as conduits of information, proving adaptable on both ends, but also serve as bridges for the transfer of identity. By “connecting” the codes of the two opposing sides they allow for the transfer of identity. They construct a common language for both sides to engage in—thus enabling both sides to present themselves in an image that appeals to a wider audience.
Sources of Authority in Networked Governance
In this age, information has more power than ever before. Mass communication now constitutes the public space and presents those