IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v38y2006i6p1061-1076.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Green Groups and Grey Areas: Scientific Boundary-Work, Nongovernmental Organisations, and Environmental Knowledge

Author

Listed:
  • Sally Eden

    (Department of Geography, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull HU6 7RX, England)

  • Andrew Donaldson

    (Centre for Rural Economy, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, England)

  • Gordon Walker

    (Department of Geography, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YB, England)

Abstract

In this paper we examine the role of nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) in debates about environmental science and knowledge, using empirical evidence from in-depth interviews with a range of NGOs involved in the waste debate in the United Kingdom. We discuss theoretical issues of scientific boundary-work and the construction of expertise and socially distributed knowledge, and then apply these to our empirical evidence. Our conclusions are that NGOs continue to subscribe to the notion of the preeminent authority of science in environmental debates, but also work partly in a more diverse, highly networked world of knowledge production which requires them to be pragmatic and versatile in how they legitimate knowledge from various sources. Hence, scientific knowledge is highly contingent in its authority, and dependent upon continual (re)negotiation.

Suggested Citation

  • Sally Eden & Andrew Donaldson & Gordon Walker, 2006. "Green Groups and Grey Areas: Scientific Boundary-Work, Nongovernmental Organisations, and Environmental Knowledge," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 38(6), pages 1061-1076, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:38:y:2006:i:6:p:1061-1076
    DOI: 10.1068/a37287
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a37287
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/a37287?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jesper Grolin, 1998. "Corporate legitimacy in risk society: the case of Brent Spar," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(4), pages 213-222, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hodgson, Isla D. & Redpath, Steve M. & Fischer, Anke & Young, Juliette, 2018. "Fighting talk: Organisational discourses of the conflict over raptors and grouse moor management in Scotland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 332-343.
    2. Cleland, Jonelle & Rogers, Abbie A., 2010. "Putting the Spotlight on Attribute Definition: a knowledge base approach," Research Reports 107578, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    3. Chia‐Hao Ho & Steffen Böhm & David Monciardini, 2022. "The collaborative and contested interplay between business and civil society in circular economy transitions," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(6), pages 2714-2727, September.
    4. Brian P Bloomfield & Bill Doolin, 2017. "Landfarming: A contested space for the management of waste from oil and gas extraction," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(11), pages 2457-2476, November.
    5. Lowe, Philip & Phillipson, Jeremy & Proctor, Amy & Gkartzios, Menelaos, 2019. "Expertise in rural development: A conceptual and empirical analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 28-37.
    6. Eileen S. Johnson & Kathleen P. Bell & Jessica E. Leahy, 2018. "Managing the science-policy boundary: implications for river restoration," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 8(3), pages 281-289, September.
    7. Sally Eden & Sylvia Tunstall, 2006. "Ecological versus Social Restoration? How Urban River Restoration Challenges but Also Fails to Challenge the Science – Policy Nexus in the United Kingdom," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(5), pages 661-680, October.
    8. Paola Gazzola & Maggie H Roe & Paul J Cowie, 2015. "Marine spatial planning and terrestrial spatial planning: reflecting on new agendas," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(5), pages 1156-1172, October.
    9. Richard Helliwell & Sarah Hartley & Warren Pearce, 2019. "NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(4), pages 779-791, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maria Joutsenvirta, 2011. "Setting Boundaries for Corporate Social Responsibility: Firm–NGO Relationship as Discursive Legitimation Struggle," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 57-75, August.
    2. Pablo Gomez‐Carrasco & Giovanna Michelon, 2017. "The Power of Stakeholders' Voice: The Effects of Social Media Activism on Stock Markets," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 855-872, September.
    3. Hannes Hofmann & Christian Busse & Christoph Bode & Michael Henke, 2014. "Sustainability‐Related Supply Chain Risks: Conceptualization and Management," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 160-172, March.
    4. Daniel Reimsbach & Rüdiger Hahn, 2015. "The Effects of Negative Incidents in Sustainability Reporting on Investors’ Judgments–an Experimental Study of Third‐party Versus Self‐disclosure in the Realm of Sustainable Development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(4), pages 217-235, May.
    5. Judy Brown & Michael Fraser, 2006. "Approaches and perspectives in social and environmental accounting: an overview of the conceptual landscape," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 103-117, March.
    6. Salla Laasonen & Martin Fougère & Arno Kourula, 2012. "Dominant Articulations in Academic Business and Society Discourse on NGO–Business Relations: A Critical Assessment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(4), pages 521-545, September.
    7. Ulf H. Richter & Felix F. Arndt, 2018. "Cognitive Processes in the CSR Decision-Making Process: A Sensemaking Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 587-602, March.
    8. Peter Dobers & Rolf Wolff, 2000. "Competing with ‘soft’ issues – from managing the environment to sustainable business strategies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 143-150, May.
    9. Maria Joutsenvirta & Liisa Uusitalo, 2010. "Cultural Competences: An Important Resource in the Industry–NGO Dialog," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 91(3), pages 379-390, February.
    10. J.J. Graafland & H. Smid, 2004. "Reputation, Corporate Social Responsibility and Market Regulation," Review of Business and Economic Literature, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Review of Business and Economic Literature, vol. 0(2), pages 271-308.
    11. Annica Bragd & Gavin Bridge & Frank den Hond & P. D. Jose, 1998. "Beyond greening: new dialogue and new approaches for developing sustainability," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(4), pages 179-192, September.
    12. Hans Haake & Stefan Seuring, 2009. "Sustainable procurement of minor items - exploring limits to sustainability," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 284-294.
    13. Ulf Richter, 2010. "Liberal Thought in Reasoning on CSR," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 97(4), pages 625-649, December.
    14. Boris Holzer, 2007. "Framing the Corporation: Royal Dutch/Shell and Human Rights Woes in Nigeria," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 281-301, September.
    15. Glen Whelan, 2013. "Corporate Constructed and Dissent Enabling Public Spheres: Differentiating Dissensual from Consensual Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(4), pages 755-769, July.
    16. Marilu Hastings, 1999. "A new operational paradigm for oil operations in sensitive environments: an analysis of social pressure, corporate capabilities and competitive advantage," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(5), pages 267-280, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:38:y:2006:i:6:p:1061-1076. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.