References to ecology have become more and more ambivalent over the last decade. On the one hand, the reduction of pollutants and waste, energy saving and the reduction of non-renewable products are fairly broadly shared objectives, even though there remain a large number of exceptions. On the other hand, emphasis on environmental objectives has been discovered to be an illusion in the establishment of many public policies because of contradictions with other programs (agricultural, industrial), as can be seen in the case of the proliferation of green algae in Brittany, for example, and the still massive use of pesticides. The production of manufactured goods is also a domain in which one often observes the instrumentalization of references to the environment as a simple argument for presentation or sale, without there being, in the production process, any real ecological considerations. It is for this reason - to denounce hypocritical advertising practices exploiting the environmental issue - that the expressions greenwasching and écoblanchiment have recently been coined.

The criticism of references to the environment has its own history. It can even be said that this debate is almost an integral part of the emergence of this new public problem; whether with regard to basic principles or measures to be taken, the controversy continues. The question is particularly sensitive in the matter of production for mass consumption and its supposed “going green.” The “International Design Conference” in Aspen, in June, 1970 represents a significant moment in the United States. Critical discourse was developed at the time. After analysis, we will see to what extent it can or cannot be found in current debates on the ambiguities of the “green economy” and “sustainable” development.

The environmentalist context of the United States

The United States is a paradoxical country in many ways and with regard to many issues and the environmental question is no exception. In the second half the 1800’s industrialization was progressing at an inexorable pace and the extraction of raw materials (coal, wood, then later petroleum) and the cultivation of vast natural spaces (through expropriation of the native peoples who lived there) was accomplished on a large scale. Finally, the development of towns and gigantic conurbations with their requirements for water, combustible energy, food and transportation, profoundly transformed the natural environment of the country. A movement of reaction took form starting in the middle of the 19th century with the “mythification” of natural spaces (the wilderness) and the considerable impact of H.D. Thoreau’s book, Walden or life in the woods (1851). The movement was powerful enough to motivate the involvement of certain political actors, resulting in the creation of the first national parks, conceived as natural museums: Yellowstone (1856) and Yosemite (1872) {1}, symbols of a nature as exceptional as it was endangered. Societies for the protection of nature sprung up all over the country, in particular with the impetus of the Sierra Club, created by John Muir in California in 1892, in order to disseminate the environmental cause. After WWII and the shock of Hiroshima, criticism was more and more focused on technological risks. In 1962 the work of biologist Rachel Carson received unprecedented national and later international attention. Her book Silent spring denounced the ravages caused throughout the totality of living species by pesticides and, in particular, DDT {2}. These movements became increasingly critical, denouncing the purposely concealed effects of science and technology, questioning capitalistic economic development and demanding more democracy in the making of public decisions. Consequently, an international movement, Friends of the Earth was created in 1969 by dissidents of the big naturalist foundation, the Sierra Club, which was considered to be too conciliatory. One of the first outcomes of these dynamics which promoted, through different angles, a better awareness of the impact on the environment, was a decisive innovation: the creation in 1969 of the first environmental ministry in the world, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This was an organization responsible for both leading expert assessments of the principal elements (air and water quality, etc.) and the drawing-up of governmental regulations. This context undoubtedly explains why the “International Design Conference,” for its 20th session, held in Aspen in June, 1970, had chosen as its theme Environnement by Design and why five environmental groups were invited to this conference {3}.

The Aspen conference and discourse on political ecology

On the occasion of this conference, confrontation with environmental questions was stated in radical fashion: “In this, its twentieth session, the theme ‘Environnement by Design’ led to a re-evaluation of the conference itself.” The texts produced during this event were revelatory of the emergence of environmental questions as a public issue of general interest, and the politicization that mobilized different social milieus during the 1960’s. This encounter, which was traditionally a space for professional exchange, combining aesthetic, technical and industrial {4} points of view, became a moment of political contestation. The eleven resolutions adopted by the participants are evidence of a very critical ideological commitment. They are addressed to the President of the United States. It is first and foremost the imperialism of the United States which is brought into question, as much for its foreign policy (war in Vietnam) as for its domestic policy (weaknesses in the social system, subjugation of minorities and First nation populations, moral repression). Next, the environmental preoccupations emerging in many industrialized countries, but already institutionalized at this time in the USA with the EPA, are manifested through the demand for a moratorium on the extraction of raw materials, as these practices are likely to cause an ecological disaster. Finally, these professionals make a commitment with regard to their practices, to no longer wastefully consume resources and conceive products with the unique goal of generating profit.

The group of thirteen French participants present at the conference draws up a text, which takes a much more radical position than the precedent platform. In this already critical context, open to the politicization of apparently technical causes, the little group of French specialists present in Aspen (including François Barre, Jean Baudrillard and Roger Tallon) {5} affirms its difference by further radicalizing its analysis. They write a collective statement which is later developed in the text by Jean Baudrillard “Design et environnement ou l’escalade de l’économie politique” {6}. They consider environmental issues, like those of design, to be mystified in order to distract the citizens’ attention from battles around more fundamental issues: the war in Vietnam, the aftermath of May 1968 in France. “There is in France and in the States a potential crisis situation. Both here and there the governments have restructured their fundamental ideology in order to face this crisis and surmount it.” They see environmental preoccupations as nothing but a new mythology, produced by capitalism, for getting through the crisis of the moment and insuring its survival. It would be a very secondary line of battle which, by focusing public attention and movements on ecological issues, especially naturalistic ones, would divert the demands of the masses.

Design is thus presented as an instrumentalized activity used in the service of a renewed productivism and consumerism. Design and environmental questions are considered to be equivalent ideological factors, both evidence of alienating manipulations, all the more so when combined. They are thought to participate in an “immense injection of publicity, of services, of public relations into consumerism, companies, and social life.” Environmental beliefs maintained in this way would divert revolted spirits and energies toward a chimerical enemy, the ecological “catastrophe,” and make it possible to believe in a possible return to a harmonious relationship with the natural elements. They would also occult in this way the relations of economic and social domination which had remained unchanged despite contestations directed against them since the mid-1960’s. The designers, architects and sociologists committed to these environmental causes were thought to act like doctors striving to relieve symptoms, whereas it was the whole of the system of social exploitation which was at cause. The Aspen conference was finally called the “Disneyland of environment and design,” a ridiculous playground which fed paralysing mystifications. More serious still, the “theory of design and environment” was called a: “Utopia produced by a capitalist system that assumes the appearance of a second nature in order to survive and perpetuate itself under the pretext of nature.”

Following this denunciation according to the rules, the arguments are continued in the text by Baudrillard mentioned above. {7} In so much as it is possible to resume it, {8} the argument develops the idea that environmental design is not only the extension of the evolution of industrial techniques toward modernity, but also constitutes a change in its intrinsic nature. The search for functionality introduced by Bauhaus and “the broadening of aesthetics to include all everyday aspects” were maximized in design to become a “rationality founded on calculations” (p. 244). Reference to the environment and considerations of it creates the illusion of a naturalization, of a quasi participation of the natural elements in their own transformation into products of consumption: “All of this aims at nothing other than better aligning this participating, contractualized, nature, recycled through intelligent design, with the norms of a rational hyper-productivity” (p.253). This reference would be nothing more than a superficial sign, admittedly efficient in ideological communication, but now separated from all veritable meaning: “To speak of ecology is to certify the death and total abstraction of nature.” (p.253).

Current ambiguities in references to the “sustainable” and the “green economy”

The position taken by the French specialists and Jean Baudrillard’s texts experienced the same destiny as many a catastrophic prophecy. Forty years later, they continue to capture our attention for their radicalism, but their confrontation with the social changes which have taken place since, oblige us to temper them. However, some contemporary phenomena can be seen as corresponding to these intuitions.

First of all, environmentalist ideology has far from submerged industrial societies. On the contrary, it is a mode of technical and economical development, which remains dominant in all countries. Industrial ecology {9} is still the exception which confirms the rule since it is a process which requires the coordination of different actors (industrial actors, local authorities, investors, non-governmental humanitarian organizations, etc.). Furthermore, the definition of and agreement on new solutions veritably integrating ecological principles in industrial production methods require long and perilous negotiations. The pressure of the economic crisis and the quest for short-term cost effectiveness are still major obstacles. It is for this reason that the great majority of companies have always maintained a highly fluctuating relationship with environmental protection. Depending on the specificities of their sector and the circumstances of the moment, they act with more or less conviction to reduce pollution, adopt clean technologies, improve the quality and durability of their products, limit waste, increase energy efficiency, etc. In spite of 200 years of regulations, the dominant attitude in the industrial milieu has long been to conform to the minimum extent possible to requirements and norms. Nevertheless, since the 1990’s, the biggest companies, as well as many small and medium-sized companies, have taken steps toward quality and “sustainable development.” However, we find a bit of everything under this label: from the simple communication plan accompanied by superficial reforms (in which case we can speak of greenwasching or écoblanchiment) to carefully thought-out steps and their conscientious implementation. {10} Does it fool many people to see the MacDonald’s logo go from a flashy red to a classy bottle green with a mustardy yellow? Or even more blatantly, to see EDF get rid of a bright blue logo and adopt a graphic design with blades which evoke windmills? The consumers, for their part, are less and less taken in by these advertising manipulations. Qualifying a new vehicle as a “green object” or “ecological UFO” is laughable at best. The impact of these manoeuvres may even backfire when court actions result in condemnation of the manufacturers for false advertising. Toyota has just been prohibited from diffusing an advertisement for its 4x4s (which emit high levels of CO₂) portraying these vehicles in action in magnificent natural spaces. The court considered that “by letting the public believe that this type of vehicle gives one permission to do whatever one wants in nature, the diffusion of this type of publicity evidently promotes behaviour contrary to the protection of the environment and preservation of natural resources.” {11} And yet the company had been reproached beforehand by the “Jury de déontologie publicitaire” who pointed out the following contradiction in the practices of the car manufacturer: “The company’s implied commitment to the development of solutions compatible with sustainable development should encourage it to be that much more vigilant in the examples it gives to the public in its advertisements.” In spite of this notification, Toyota continued to diffuse some of its advertising campaigns. But in the minds of the advertisers the stereotype associating the image of a vehicle with “wild” spaces (dunes, beaches, snowy expanses) remains powerful, and other carmakers have also been reprimanded. The Amis de la terre have therefore created the Pinocchio prize to accuse the most dishonest advertising campaigns with regard to the environment {12}. Actions have even been recently brought against companies on this basis.

On a deeper level, management promotes certain industrial strategies which are directed toward a better consideration of environmental issues — with varied results. In non-financial assessments, the commitments of a company with regard to all involved parties in terms of respecting regulations, product quality rules and public accountability in management, can be justified under the vast notion of “social responsibility.” The drawing up of standards of environmental quality (ISO, GRI norms) {13} supported this taking into account by the direction of companies of reference, mixing moral standards and economy. They can adhere to them willingly in order to reinforce both their internal coherence and their outward image. {14} The normative interest of these standards is that they require regular reports, validated by experts outside of the company. In France, the Grenelle II law (July, 2010, article 225) provides for the biggest companies {15} to make an annual report on their environmental impact and their strategy for sustainable development (RSE report). The report is addressed as much to stockholders and investors as to consumers and non-governmental organizations. It is supposed to furnish verifiable data, which is often incomplete. {16} Nevertheless, a study done by the Ifop in 2009 {17} showed that many companies do not consider themselves to be decisive actors in sustainable development. Only 30% of the company directors estimated that the large companies had the best leverage at their disposition for addressing these issues. 83% admitted that it was the evolution of regulations that made them move in this direction and only 54% recognized the risk of deterioration of their image. For 87% of those surveyed, it was client satisfaction and not improvement of their environmental integration that remained the principal objective.

Anyone can easily see, and sociological observation only confirms, that it is not the environmental “utopia” and its merchandization that assures the survival of industrial capitalism. The “organic” market, while in expansion, remains minimal, representing less than 4% of cultivated land and less than 1000 producers. The market is evaluated to be around 4 Mds €. Even the predicted danger of catastrophes associated with climatic change (increasingly objectified in calculable risk) has yet to reorient, in a radical fashion, our mode of development and energy consumption. However, the Aspen denigrators had, in a certain manner, anticipated a decisive change which came to pass in the 1990’s following the report by G. H. Brundtland Our common future (1987). To take into consideration the interests of the southern countries, this prospective analysis introduced the notion of “sustainable development” {18} which does a balancing act between environmental protection, economic development objectives, and reinforcement of social rights. Since then, in the last 20 years, the environmental approach has been profoundly “economicized”; that is to say, that it must increasingly be justified by the economic values that it has created. We speak about biodiversity as being “services rendered by nature” and the importance of marshes and zones of overflow as being “natural infrastructures.” The integration of nature into public action was made at the cost of its massive “anthropization” and subordination to calculation.

Another recent phenomenon can be compared to the sombre prophesies of Aspen. In fact, by imposing environmental investments on companies, the non-governmental organizations and public authorities reinforced these economic actors’ role of leader. A logical conversion was made, in particular by the transnational companies: for them, the environment ceased to be a constraint and became at once a source of innovation and, above all, discovered itself to be part of a market dynamic. The “green economy” was the main theme of the Rio+20 (June, 2012) at which the notion of sustainable development, in one of its umpteenth mutations, became the means to “eradicate poverty” in the world. It opposed the “brown economy” of traditional development which exhausted many resources without resolving inequalities of development. The PNUE report defines the green economy as “an economy which brings about an improvement in human well-being and social equity while at the same time significantly reducing environmental risks and shortages in resources. In its simplest form, it is characterized by a low rate of carbon emission, rational use of resources and social inclusion.” It involves generating increased revenue through investments in the exploitation of “natural capital.” Reading between the lines, it’s a merchandization of nature, in particular, of the water, the land and the biodiversity of the least-developed countries which is envisaged. The big western companies, but also those connected to the governments of developing nations would be the first to benefit. One of the most striking examples of this trend is the Desertec project, run by German companies in North Africa, which aims to convert the deserts into a solar energy plant. {19} In Sudan and Ethiopia, millions of hectares have been bought or rented long term by food-processing companies to produce grains. But the real issue is the irrigation capacity of the Nile and who will buy it up. Furthermore, nothing guarantees that this intensified exploitation of natural goods, which have become monetizable resources, would be done in better conditions than those of the “brown economy” so disparaged these days. The hopes placed, in the beginning of the 2000s in biofuels as substitutes for gasoline were soon dashed. In the final analysis, their carbon assessment is weak, if not negative, as very big spaces have been deforested in Brazil, Indonesia and Borneo to produce the plants necessary for the development of these fuels. For the past few years, multinational corporations have multiplied partnerships with UN agencies in order to promote this “green economy,” in particular those who dominate the sectors of energy, pharmacy and the search for new raw materials. These powerful firms will be particularly difficult to regulate, all the more so since this “green economy” is aligned with the short-term and middle-term interests of the benefitting nations and their often predatory oligarchies.

Forty years after Aspen, public and private actions that take questions of the use of natural resources and the impact of technical development into consideration, have proliferated. They don’t necessarily depend on a unique corpus of doctrines, nor are they all the more oppressive as Baudrillard feared. On the contrary, the notion of environment remains a highly polysemic category of thought. What makes up “environment” for one person is not the same for another. It all depends on the logic or reasoning that leads to the use of the word. The signification given to this extremely malleable reference depends on the context of use in which it is invoked. It is for this reason that one must not confuse the multiform presence of that which is “eco,” “green,” “organic,” and “sustainable” with real transformations in modes of thought and social practices. This type of label still very often remains pure facade or without profound implication. The question is knowing what they apply to and to what extent. That is why it is always necessary to define what each activity (productive and/or artistic) invests in the use of the categories of “nature,” “environment” or “ecology.” Beyond allusions or even promotional canvassing, one must always wonder what the qualities and constraints, the norms and values are of those who refer to these notions, and which ones they integrate into their choices.