I.1. The mysterious paradigm of sustainable development

Since the end of the Second World War, a considerable increase in the power of science and a formidable acceleration in technological progress have been observed. Use of the atom, the conquest of space, and understanding of the human genome, to cite only a few, bear witness to these new frontiers of knowledge and power which have been explored by mankind for the last few decades. This movement is mobilizing governments, catching the interest of industry leaders, and stoking the fires of hope among citizens and consumers who are looking for a better way of life. As a kind of flip side, the end of “The Glorious Thirty” era in France is also marked by recognition of the problem of the environment. The first large UN conference dedicated to the human environment, which took place in Stockholm in 1972, bears witness to this, in a context where “thinking about the future has become fashionable in recent years, with particular emphasis on ‘doom watching’ [COL 73, p. v, §2].

The following decade of mobilization intended to profoundly modify an industrial society committed to what appeared to be a frantic race. In a context marked by the “Cold War” and the increase in power of the Third World, the United Nations Environment Program, which was created as a result of the Stockholm Conference, gave a reminder of the responsibility of the great world powers in terms of the environment, insisting on the fact that only political means and concertation would lead to establishment of a new model of society¹. During the 1970s and 1980s, proposals for ecodevelopment, upheld in particular by Ignacy Sachs², were those favored by international institutions to give body to this perspective. Three dimensions form the basis of eco-development: “independent decisions, equitable consideration of requirements, and ecological prudence” [SAC 93, p. 14]. But soon, a different watchword was to emerge.

In 1983, after the evident failure of the Nairobi Summit (“Stockholm+10”), the UN World Commission on Environment and Development was created, presided over by Gro Harlem Brundtland. After five years of work, this commission published the report entitled “Our common future” [WCE 87], in which it proposed a new concept – sustainable development – to reconcile the concerns of development and environmental protection. We know that there is no lack of definitions for this. For example, we take particular note of this one: “Sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are made consistent with future as well as present needs” [WCE 87, pp. 10–11]. Concerns no longer only focus on exhaustion of natural resources, energy crises, or elimination of certain chemicals; it is above all a question of overall modification of the approach taken in that era of development. However, despite the spate of definitions pertaining to it, it must be noted that sustainable development is an enigma [THE 01, VIV 07]: it is a normative principle without regulations, at least not explicit or in agreement.

This has not prevented the call to general mobilization, contained within the Brundtland report, from being heard. The first Rio de Janeiro Summit in 1992 opened its doors to an unexpected number of politicians, NGOs, and industry leaders. All three of the latter met together during this event under the framework of the Business Council for Sustainable Development directed by the businessman Stephan Schmidheiny [SCH 92]. This increase in power of the business world was to continue throughout the following decade. From this point of view, the Johannesburg Summit, organized in 2002, was a definite turning point [VIV 05, p. 27], with, on the one hand, official recognition of the translation of sustainable development to management practices – the well-known “three pillars” of sustainable development, which are an adaptation of Elkington’s triple bottom line [ELK 98] – and, on the other hand, “type II initiatives”, public–private partnerships, which are the essence of the new commitments which favor sustainable development. “These are disparate measures, based on voluntary commitments, most often without evaluation procedures, and which, for the most part, can be assimilated to promotional actions” [VIV 05, p. 27].

Around 20 years after the first Earth Summit was held, would it be that the enigma of sustainable development is in the process of being resolved? We would almost be tempted to believe this, so strong has the enthusiasm for green growth been since the organization of Rio+20 [DAM 12]. In a context marked by the international financial crisis, a new increase in oil prices, and the rise in mass unemployment, this new form of growth is perceived as a remedy for past damage and as a promise of economic development which generates employment, has less environmental impact, and involves more equitable sharing. This green growth, which must allow certain sectors of activity to be set on the path to sustainable development, gives prominence to technological innovation [VIV 13].

I.2. A deus ex machina or when the key to the enigma is through technological progress

Such remarks are nothing new. Since the beginning of the 1970s, emphasis has effectively been placed on the possibilities offered by science and technology for resolution of the ecological crisis. Certainly, authors such as Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen³ [GEO 71] or Denis Meadows and his colleagues at MIT [MEA 72] have hardly any confidence in the latter to respond to the problem of “limits to growth” that they draw up. This leads the first to foresee a “degrowth” over time [GEO 75] and the second to refer to a static state, a perspective dear to John Stuart Mill and brought up to date by Herman Daly [VIV 05, p. 8]. However, the criticisms directed at pioneers of the ecological economy on the one hand, and the first report submitted to the Club of Rome on the other hand, point out the pessimism of these authors. This is particularly the case for those emanating from researchers at the University of Sussex, with front row seats occupied by Christopher Freeman and Keith Pavitt, the fathers of the Neo-Schumpeterian theory. In their publication Thinking about the Future: A Critique of “Limits to Growth” [COL 73], they begin by recognizing the quality of the work done by the Meadows team. Nevertheless, the debate around “growth versus no growth” has been, in their eyes, surpassed, because the problems that must be tackled come from the determining factors which influence the aforementioned growth⁴. The chosen direction of technological change and the implemented type of innovation are targeted. The team from the University of Sussex believes that modification of production means will be made possible by the transition of “ordinary” technologies to technologies that are “necessary for pollution controls” [COL 73, p. 155].

This emphasis placed on the possibilities offered by technology can be found in the Stockholm Declaration, adopted in June 1972. Among its 26 principles, the eighteenth stipulates that “science and technology, as part of their contribution to economic and social development, must be applied to the identification, avoidance and control of environmental risks and the solution of environmental problems and for the common good of mankind” [UNE 72]. This technical perspective also drives the definition of the role and scope of the United Nations Environment Program, which was created at the end of this Stockholm Conference. There is strong opposition, then, between a wide concept of eco-development, defended in particular by Ignacy Sachs, and an environmental approach which would be limited to pollution problems, defended in particular by United States consuls [VIV 05, pp. 16–17]. This was already a foreshadowing of the competition that the notions of eco-development and sustainable development delivered during the 1980s and 1990s.

The advent of sustainable development is effectively expressed by renewed confidence in technological progress. From this point of view, the Brundtland report makes a remarkable reversal of perspective with regard to the Meadows report. To thoroughly come to terms with this, let us consider the most well-known definition of sustainable development in existence: “A development that responds to the requirements of the present without compromising the capability of future generations to respond to theirs” [WCE 87, p. 51]. Two concepts specified in the report are associated with this notion: that of requirements, and more specifically, the essential requirements of the most impoverished who should be given priority, and the idea of limitations (imposed by technology and social organization) to the capacity of the environment to respond to the requirements of current and future generations. In other words, it is not that the biosphere has a limited load capacity; it is mankind that has limited means – in particular technological means – to make good use of it. And for those who would still question the page that “our common future” wishes to turn, Gro Harlem Brundtland declared at the World Climate Conference held in Toronto in 1988 that “there is no limit to growth”⁵.

At that time, engineering sciences also intervened directly in the debate through publication of the well-known article by Frosch and Gallopoulos [FRO 89], for whom the solution would be “to imitate the best workings of biological ecosystems and construct artificial ones that can be sustained over the long term” [FRO 89, p. 7]. Industrial ecology (which we will return to later) was thus launched and soon acquired the status of “science of sustainability” [ALL 94; ERK 98; DIE 07, p. 3].

The discussions which took place during the first Earth Summit organized in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 culminated in the creation of a regulatory framework favoring technologies which are more respectful of the environment. Four rules lead to the identification and practice of clean production [UNI 94]. The first advocates preventive actions and integrated strategies regarding the environment. The second insists that the “conservation of raw materials and energy, elimination of toxic raw materials, and reduction (ideally minimization) of the quantity and toxicity of all emissions and wastes” must be taken into account. The third deals with tools of control, guaranteeing “reducing impact along the entire life cycle of the product”. A fourth rule pertains to “applying know-how, by improving technologies, and by changing attitude”, without specifying of whom and with regard to what. We observe here that the new types of desired technical changes tend towards prevention, modification of behavior, and means of control. These requirements also refer to the idea that technological change is at the crossroads of several disciplines: ranging from chemists and subject matter experts, to managers, engineers, production system specialists, and social scientists who take an interest in political, economic, and social concerns.

Within this movement, the first scientific journals dedicated to environmental innovations were deployed, following the example of the Journal of Cleaner Production which appeared in 1993 and the Journal of Industrial Ecology, whose first issue was published in 1997. While it is, again in this case, technicians and engineers who are at the origin of these first editorial initiatives, they are soon followed by researchers in economic sciences and in management sciences⁶. We can cite, for example, the special editions of the journal Innovations dedicated to the themes of Sustainable development and innovation (2009) and Environment and innovation opportunities (2012), as well as that of the French journal Economie Appliquée entitled Materials for economic analysis of eco-innovations, which was directed by Virgile Chassagnon and Christian Le Bas [CHA 13]. In the same way, the journal Innovation and Development, created in 2011, dedicated a special edition in 2012 to innovations focused on sustainability concerns in China and in India. Even a journal entirely dedicated to this subject, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, surfaced at the beginning of the decade 2010–2020 [VAN 11]. This is intended to be a place where different theoretical perspectives on this question can come together and be debated, as shown by the presence, in particular, of Robert Ayres and Udo Ernst Simonis [AYR 94], Marina Fischer-Kowalski [FIS 88, FIS 09], René Kemp [KEM 92, KEM 10], and Ulrich Witt [WIT 97]. It is of note that sustainability transition management [GEE 07, GRI 10] occupies a central position. The fruit of an interdisciplinarity among evolutionist economics, science and sociology, this school of thought intends to favor steering technological changes with a view to sustainable development. The movement for technological change is described on a multilevel perspective, as (a) the product of encouragement for innovation arising from macrosocial pressures; (b) carried by companies which, on a micro-economic level and within “niches”, were exploring the range of innovations; (c) leading to progressive constitution of a dominant design and to exploitation of the technology which has become the most efficient. This sequence of exploration of the variety/exploitation of a dominant design would determine the form of a new socio-technical regime, which was expected as part of thinking about sustainable development.

This model, subject of academic debates and controversies, including as part of the movement for sustainability transition management⁷, is particularly popular among political authorities. During the decade 2000–2010, it thus received strong support from the Dutch government (see the Foreword to Grin et al. [GRI 10, pp. 17–19]). It is also used by the European Community as part of forecasting exercises carried out in the green chemical industry [NIE 14]. The quest for winning technologies, which will put the economic and social trajectories on the path towards sustainable development, seem to be on the agenda more than ever.

I.3. A doctrine of eco-innovation?

These academic developments and political instruments, on the subject of environmental innovations, bear witness to the fact that there is today what we can call a body of doctrine relating to environmental innovation, which is explained by a certain context and is based on knowledge and elements provided by different theoretical corpora.

Let us pause at this term “doctrine” which, having been used a lot in economics, is now hardly used. “Doctrine”, write Daniel Villey and Colette Nême, “proclaims what should be, and dictates what should be done […]. A doctrine, etymologically, is an education […].

An economic doctrine would be an interpretation of economic life integrated into a larger intellectual group, of which all compartments can be mutually controlled and illuminated […]. Doctrines can only be studied in history and be understood in history.” [NÊM 85, p. 5] Historic importance, complexity, and normativity: here are three dimensions that we are going to have to come to understand.

Current doctrine, which will be presented and discussed throughout this work, recognizes the existence of environmental innovations, and attributes a normative and performative dimension to them, explains their characteristics, the typology which can be drawn up of them, their determinants, and so on. The role of public authorities in their emergence and diffusion remains essential, but the significant influence of private international norms must be relied on in this matter. Resting on a voluntary commitment and adapting to the characteristics of companies and organizations, these norms propose a wide range of evaluation tools in order not to limit the creativity of the innovator.

However, some of these major intellectual figures question its robustness and express their doubts about the analytical basis of environmental innovations while appealing for prudence in the political recommendations that can be drawn from it. This is particularly the case for René Kemp who, in 2010, published an article with a provocative title: “Sustainable Technologies do not Exist!” He expresses the great difficulty in identifying eco-innovations, due to the systemic effects they are subject to, and to considering them as true alternatives on the subject of sustainability. Their selection comes from an evaluation of their private and social costs which is very subjective, complex and difficult to identify ex ante. In other words, while any innovation, a posteriori, can turn out to be an eco-innovation, nothing can ensure, a priori, that an environmental innovation is really such a thing. There are also authors, even more critical, who underline the existence of rebound effects [POL 08, ALC 05] – which we will come back to – which counteract the technological progress made. More recently, in their foreword to the French special edition of Economie Appliquée dedicated to eco-innovations, Virgile Chassagnon and Christian Le Bas prudently note on their subject that “in today’s world where questions of the environment are so pressing and, paradoxically, public policies still so ineffective, they constitute a subject of analysis in itself, of which the stakes at play are still weakly measured” [CHA 13, p. 83].

I.4. Moving towards a critical analysis of the process of environmental innovation

Considering the concerns, controversies and uncertainties which exist, we are convinced that analyzing environmental innovation and its entire process from a new angle would allow light to be shed on this complex subject of study. Even adopting the simplest approach possible, each stage of its evolution can be part of the linear Schumpeterian model typified by “Invention – Innovation – Diffusion”⁸, within each of which diverse scientific disciplines have the challenging task of understanding its operation. Technological sciences, including engineers and designers, provide, for example, an abundance of literature on subjects such as ecodesign and analysis of a product’s life cycle, and can track the history of a product, re-think its design, think up diverse forms of “economic resurrection” (recycling, for example), and even fight against planned obsolescence. Economic sciences, as for them, question its relationships with the market economy and the various possible modes of coordination with and without prices (conventions, for example), which allows its operation, its diffusion and its effects to be understood in a wider framework. We have in mind sector-specific analysis, its relationships with economic crises (creative destruction, for example), the roles of economic policies, and also its contributions to the green growth movement. In addition, these are an assembly and links that need to be understood, or (re)created, to appreciate all their singularity.

This work offers a critical analysis of the process of environmental innovation as it is understood and defended by the doctrine in place. We will lay out its concerns, its principles, and its limits by focusing on what we consider to be the “alpha and omega”: environmental innovation and ecodesign. These points will be developed and dealt with in two parts.

The first chapter of this work presents the doctrine of environmental innovation and explains the reasons why it is today mainstream, this being despite its weaknesses that we will also present. We will first look at how it has reached a prominent position in economic theory, and then we will discuss its typology. Finally, we will present its determinants that can be found as much in the market sphere as the non-market sphere, and also at a macrosystemic level, as illustrated by the risk of rebound effects.

The second chapter of this work is dedicated to the concept of ecodesign, which presents itself as a logical extension to that of environmental innovation. Effectively, as we will discover, a distinction was made very early on in thinking about environmental innovation between a remedial approach and a preventive approach. For the environment, as for human health, “prevention is better than cure”, as is often said. In the name of this principle, we have taken an interest in the way in which the processes of production and the products are devised, and we have sought to define what ecodesign could be. In addition, as much in advance of as after the environmental innovation process, each stage seems to be sufficiently stabilized and endowed with sufficiently robust tools to give conclusive results – which we will come to understand and discuss.