Environmental Management: Principles and practice

Strategic environmental management
The formalized, systematic and comprehensive process of evaluating the
environmental effects of a policy, programme, or plan and alternatives (leading to
publication of a report) is known as strategic environmental assessment. This has
been applied to things like aid programmes, structural adjustment, changes in public
transport policy, etc. (Partidário, 1996). Overlapping a little with strategic
environmental assessment is strategic environmental management (SEM), which can
be defined as the preparation and implementation of policies that seek sustainable
development of the environment (Nijkamp and Soeteman, 1988). SEM should ensure
a long-term view and adequate monitoring of local, regional and global issues. The
Netherlands has gone further than most countries towards adopting SEM as part of
national policy (Ministerie VROM, 1989), and Europe is committed to adopting it
(Figure 13.1).
FIGURE 13.1 Linkages of levels in sustainable development tasks (based on the approach
adopted by the National Environmental Policy Plan of The Netherlands
Source: Carley and Christie (1992:199, Fig. 9.2)

---

CHAPTER THIRTEEN
258
It has been argued that there are situations where SEM may not be the best
option, especially for some companies, in spite of pressure for its adoption (Vastag
et al., 1996).
Stance and environmental management
Political and ethical stances play an important part in determining environmental
management goals and the strategies used to achieve them. An environmental manager
can follow a textbook scientific approach or, more likely, socioeconomic and
politically aware approaches (Boehmer-Christiansen, 1994), and is influenced by
his or her own outlook. Those who profess concern for the environment have a wide
spectrum of viewpoints and usually frequently revise their ideas, so stance is usually
rather elastic (Parkin, 1989). (O’Riordan and Turner, 1983:1–62 give an overview of
environmentalist ideologies.) There are ‘light-greens’, prepared to make use of science
and technology to improve human well-being and environmental quality, and who
are aware of limitations in doing this; there are ‘cornucopians’, who probably have
excessive trust in the capacity of science and technology to cure all environment and
development problems; there are ‘deep-greens’, who mistrust science and technology
and seek social changes and altered attitudes as a strategy; there are deep-greens
who adopt a romantic approach, and some who profess a ‘holistic’ approach; and
some who favour spiritual development or New Age values (Naess, 1989). Some
environmentalists are ecocentric and give nature greater priority than human needs,
while others are anthropocentric and place human needs first. Many greens adopt a
decentralist, slightly anarchistic stance; others support established political parties
(Pepper, 1984; Dalton, 1994; Dobson, 1995). The question is, with which group(s)
does environmental management have sympathy?
Many deep-greens believe that ecological awareness is spiritual and that new
ethics, vital for satisfactory environmental management, must be grounded in
spirituality (Sessions, 1994:21). Those who profess deep ecology also seek a paradigm
shift, to a philosophy which aims at a sustainable society based on material simplicity
and spiritual richness (Dobson, 1995).
Supporters of social ecology advocate a decentralized, co-operative, anarcho-
socialist lifestyle (claiming that if people are in harmony with one another they are
more likely to be in harmony with nature—a far from established assumption)
(Bookchin, 1972; 1982; 1986). Eco-feminism (see chapter 12) has been critical of
deep-green and social ecology viewpoints, arguing that gender neutrality is not
enough, and anti-androcentric approaches are needed to end paternalistic behaviour
which leads to exploitation of women and the environment (Zimmerman, 1987;
Cheney, 1987; Merchant, 1992).
Extreme eco-radicals or ‘eco-warriors’, such as the Earth First! groups, put
environmental welfare before human welfare and may resort to eco-terrorism
(‘monkey-wrenching’), even violence in pursuit of their goals. Some animal rights
groups take a similar line.
Ecosocialism involves more than redefinition of human needs and redistribution

---

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
259
of resources: it also seeks new forms of production which reject private ownership in
favour of social justice and new forms of social order (Pepper, 1993). Environmental
issues have been underplayed by Marxism and socialist theorists; the German die
Grünen (‘greens’) boasted in the 1970s: ‘we are neither left nor right, we are ahead!’
and the lead seems not to have been challenged much. Socialist and communist
utopian development efforts, say in the former USSR, have generated as severe
environmental problems as western capitalism—both use industrialized manufacture
and agriculture and have exploited resources with little concern for nature (Pryde,
1991). There are significant differences between socialism and green orientations
(Bahro, 1982; 1984); to address the environmental gap in socialism, ‘green socialism’
has appeared (Ryle, 1988).
An environmental manager working for a company or a government will
probably have to liaise with a number of environmentalist groups, some co-operative,
others difficult to work with or downright hostile. Without some form of co-ordination
and, if need be, restraint a plethora of different environmental groups is unlikely to
achieve much, but, guided by good environmental management, they may become
powerful and useful allies. However, initially at least, there is a need for caution in
dealings, to avoid misinformation, the risk of one group trying to gain advantages
over another, over-powerful alliances, etc. Corporate environmental managers are
generally aware of these risks and have developed guidelines.