Network society theory argues that the current society constitutes a new type of social structure characterized by two emerging social forms of time and space. These are timeless time and the space of flows. Timeless time is defined by the use of new information technologies (Castells, 2000). The space of flows organizes the simultaneity of social practices at a distance, by means of telecommunications and information technologies. The space of flows is not placeless. It is made of nodes and networks which are connected to the space of places. The space of places is the material support of time-sharing social practices where meaning, function and locality are closely interrelated. It privileges social interaction and institutional organization on the basis of physical contiguity (Castells, 2004). What is distinctive of the new social structure, the network society, is that most processes, including power concentration, wealth creation and distribution, and information exchange are organized in the space of flows. Nevertheless, most human experience, and meaning, is still locally based. According to network society theory, there is a fundamental opposition emerging in the network society between two logics of space, that of the space of flows and that of the space of places. The disjunction between the two spatial logics is a fundamental mechanism of struggle in our societies, because the core economic, symbolic, and political processes shift away from the realm where social meaning can be constructed (Castells, 1997). Thus, dominant functions in current society are organized in networks pertaining to a space of flows that links the networks around the world, while fragmented subordinate functions and people are located in the multiple spaces of places. According to Castells (2004), the main option that the local has to avoid being overwhelmed by the global is to become a node in alternative global networks.
In network society theory, networks are defined as a set of interconnected nodes and open structures able to expand without limits, integrating new nodes as long as they are able to communicate within the network. Thus, a network-based social structure is a highly dynamic, open system, susceptible to innovating without threatening its balance. Networks can be seen as an organism where all the individual units (nodes) of the network cooperate to achieve their goal (Castells, 2000). Flows are the streams of information and other resources between nodes circulating through the channels of connection between nodes (Castells, 2004). Networks are very old forms of social organization but only with the recent development have they become the dominant form of social organization. On the one hand, networks are flexible and adaptable forms of organization, able to evolve with their environment and with the evolution of the nodes that compose networks. On the other hand, networks have considerable difficulty in co-ordinating functions, in focusing resources on specific goals, and in managing the complexity of a given task beyond a certain size of the network (Castells, 2000).
Below, three key concepts of network society theory are presented in more depth: governance arrangements, cooperation and power relationships.
2.3.1 Network governance arrangements
According to network society theory, economies throughout the world have progressively become globally interdependent, introducing a new form of relationship between economy, the state, and
2. Analysing changing NGOs-SMEs interactions: theories, concepts and a framework 33
society, in a system of variable organizational structures and strategies. Network society theory emphasises organizational transformation and the emergence of a globally interdependent social structure. What matters in this new social arrangement is the networking capacity of institutions and organizations, both locally and globally (Castells, 2004).
Particularly, the relationships of production and consumption are structured under new governance arrangements (Castells, 2000). Thus, the diffusion of networking logic in processes of production substantially modifies their operation and outcomes. Production is defined in network society theory as technological arrangements. It means a set of tools, rules, and procedures through which scientific knowledge is applied to a given task in a reproducible manner (Castells, 2000). Production is the action of humankind on nature, to appropriate it and transform it for its benefit by obtaining a product, consuming part of it, and accumulating surplus for investment, according to socially decided goals (Castells, 2000). Currently activities of production, consumption, as well as their components (e.g. capital, raw materials, management, information, technology, markets) are organized on a global scale, either directly or through a network of linkages between economic agents. In fact, capitalism itself has undergone a process of profound restructuring, characterized by greater flexibility in management, decentralization and networking of organizations in their relations. In this new context, despite the fact that the network society is the dominant new paradigm, industrialism does not disappear. Indeed, industry is seen as fundamental component of the new paradigm (Castells, 2004).
As a result of such re-arrangements, during the last years environmental networks organized in regional and global platforms have been emerging as part of the new societal spaces. These global environmental movement networks are diverse in their composition, and vary widely in their expressions from country to country and between cultures. Castells (1997) argues that there is a relationship between the rise of environmental global networks and the fundamental dimensions of the network society. Due to the pervasive profile of the space of flows, most environmental NGOs have become largely institutionalized, that is, they have accepted the need to act in the framework of existing institutions, and within the rules of the global market economy. The environmental movement is at the same time localist and globalist: globalist in the management of time and localist in the defence of place. Much of the success of the environmental networks comes from the fact that they have been able to best adapt to the conditions of communications and mobilization in the new technological paradigm (Castells, 1997).
Business has been influenced by changes in the environmental movement, and has tried to adapt their process and their products to new legislation, new tastes, and new values, while trying to make profit out of it at the same time. An example of adaptation of business to the new conditions is the endorsement by companies of emerging approaches promoting sustainability, such as business social responsibility and cleaner production. Furthermore, the increasing organization of business in global value chains such as food and garment is contributing to decentralize environmental transgression to SME suppliers spread in several countries all over the world. As Castells (1997) states, the growth of production and the flow of supply of SMEs towards the global markets have implications on the distribution of the environmental burden. Therefore, to influence properly the global business networks, environmental NGOs have to decentralize their action from the centers of global consumption to the ‘tails’ of global production. This means NGOs (aim to) influence not only the business headquarters but also their SME suppliers. To do so, environmental NGOs,
34 NGOs and the sustainability of SMEs in Peru
like business, have to be organized in networks of global reach. Furthermore, to be effective in tackling environmental burdens of global supply chains, global networks of NGOs need to include SMEs in the decision making. Therefore, improving the environmental conditions of SMEs need a close coordination of local NGOs, international NGOs, SMEs and larger companies involved in value chains.
2.3.2 Network cooperation
According to Castells (2004), cooperation in networks is based on the ability to communicate. This ability depends on the existence of codes of translation and inter-operability between networks (protocols of communication), and the access to connection points (switches) (Castells, 2004).
Cooperation has become a key issue in the network society. For instance, economic networks establish alliances, agreements and joint ventures in order to have access to profitable markets and to be able to compete (Castells, 2000). Major companies work in a strategy of changing alliances and partnerships, specific to a given product, process, time and space. Similarly, SMEs are connected in networks. Such networks are often established for the purpose of specific business projects, e.g. a particular production process, and disappear or are modified into another network as soon as the project is finished (Castells, 2000). The unity of the production process is not the firm but the business project. The firm become a node that is part of global economic networks and flows (Castells, 2000).
Network society theory acknowledges cooperation between environmental networks and business networks. Over the last few decades, both networks have been working in coordination and have put their perspectives and needs in a common agenda. Environmental networks focus on making environmental legislation and governance by lobbying the state and collaborating with companies (Castells, 1997). None of the actors involved in the networks has the capacity on its own to bring about the changes necessary for environmental reform. Therefore, in environmental reform business and NGOs have starting to move to strategies of cooperation and trust rather than confrontation (Brand & De Bruijn, 1999).
2.3.3 Network power relationships
Power is understood in this research in terms of flows of resources, connections and values. Particularly, resources are exchanged through the networks as flows of information, funding and technical expertise. The capacity to be resourceful and allocate resources puts actors in position of power. What resource is powerful and powerless is defined by key actors. Key actors are the power holders in the networks, performing as network nodes. As influential actors, they are in best position to define the aim and the configuration of the networks. If a key actor in the network ceases to perform a useful function, it is phased out from the network, and the network rearranges itself. Some nodes are more important than others, but they all need each other as long as they are within the network (Castells, 2000). Therefore, networks work on a binary logic: inclusion/ exclusion. All there is in the network is useful and necessary for the existence of the network. What is not in, is ignored or eliminated (Castells, 2000). Nodes increase their importance for the network by absorbing more relevant information, and processing it more efficiently. The relative
2. Analysing changing NGOs-SMEs interactions: theories, concepts and a framework 35
importance of a node does not stem from its specific features but from its ability to contribute to the network goals (Castells, 2004).
Networks have no centre and actors share decision-making (Castells, 2000). While some actors have a greater degree of influence than others, there is never an absolute power or zero degree of influence of one actor over another (Castells, 2009). Networks make it materially impossible to exercise hierarchical power without processing instructions in the network, according to the network´s rules. While hierarchical power implies a chain of command among actors, democratic power implies a shared decision making among actors. Thus, in the network society, power is redefined, but it does not vanish. Nor does social struggle. Each network defines its own power system depending on its programmed goals (Castells, 2004).
The ability of exercising control over others in the network depends on two basic mechanisms: the ability to program/reprogram the networks; and the ability to connect different networks to ensure their cooperation by sharing common goals and increasing resources. Castells (2004) calls the holders of the first power position ‘programmers’ and the holders of the second power position ‘switchers’. Network nodes are the key actors and because of their position in the social structure, they exercise power in the network society (Castells, 2004).
The power relationships in networks are also related to the dynamics of domination and of resistance to domination. Dominant functions are no longer organized in geographical spaces but rather in the space of information networks (Castells, 2000). This brings togetherness and separation of networks at the same time. According to Castells (2000), the dialectical opposition of space of flows and the space of places provokes simultaneous processes of globalization and localization. In the struggle for domination, environmental networks emerge as challengers of the dominant structure of the network society, which is made up of the global financial market networks and the network enterprises.
Power relationship is particularly central in the social structure of production and consumption (Castells, 2000). Political institutions are not the main site of power any longer. The more decisive power is the power of information and communication flows, and cultural codes embedded in networks (Castells, 2000). Actors, rooted in the social structure of the network society, influence the relationships of production and consumption by enacting, reproducing or transforming it. This process, naturally, involves actors in sharp conflicts and strong disagreements with each other (Castells, 2000). Political institutions embodied in the national government have partly retreated from governing production and consumption structures in favour of global (financial) market networks. This increasing loss of power of governmental structures sets the stage for a more dynamic role of the networks of NGOs in influencing production and consumption structures. Particularly, NGOs are challenged to stand for the social and environmental concerns caused by such structures. This can be done not only by pressuring global market networks but also by making alliances with companies endorsing sustainability and ‘green’ products and consumption. Thus, the power struggle is not only between the NGO networks and business networks but also between ‘frontrunner’ companies and ‘laggard’ companies, and between NGOs opposing market dynamics and NGOs endorsing it.
36 NGOs and the sustainability of SMEs in Peru