In the majority of cases, the suggestion that we should change the way we live was not well received by the participants. However, there were some examples of revolutionary actions that were promoted by the champions and accepted by their colleagues. In this section I will consider two actions that were reflective of revolutionary discourses. Both examples are taken from Business A.
In one of the offices, many members of staff bought their lunch from a local cafe where the food was sold in polystyrene boxes. These could not be recycled and the champions therefore tried to introduce the use of Tupperware dishes. Employees were encouraged to take their own container to the cafe instead of bringing back the non-recyclable box and putting it in the general waste. However, as one champion explained, the response to this was not positive:
We thought why don’t we try it and maybe, maybe it’s not that complicated, but the reaction you have from people is ‘that’s far too complicated, what are you ask*, what are you, you know, this is too different, this is too much’...’this is, I want, you know, how things have always been’...‘I want my lunch in a, in my polystyrene box’. So it’s a bit weird (A-1, 1106-1115).
179
For the champions who worked in the office this seemed like a fairly sensible suggestion. It was an extension of the accepted environmental message to reduce waste. However, for many of the people who were asked to engage in the activity, it was not easy or straightforward and they were not prepared to do it.
The fact that the champions had tried to encourage the action in the first place does indicate the influence of more revolutionary discourses in terms of the behaviour that they were promoting. There was no incentive or co-benefits attached to the use of the boxes and using them required extra effort. People had to remember to bring them in to work and then wash them when they were finished. In this way, individuals were being asked to embrace the role of an active citizen who is
‘motivated by an altruistic concern for a larger community’ (Berglund and Matti 2006, p.555). There was little benefit to the individual person at the time of the act.
They were expected to engage in the behaviour because it was good for environment.
Champions that promoted this action drew upon an account of human nature that reflected a discourse of democratic citizenship.
However, most of the time, this account of human nature was rejected by the champions in favour of a more self-interested account of human nature (where actions required little or no effort and involved co-benefits). It is perhaps then not surprising that people were reluctant to engage in this action. Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) argue that ‘egoistic orientation can only be a motivator for pro-environmental behaviour as long as the action serves the person’s needs and wants… a strong egoistic orientation is counter-productive when the desired behaviour negates a person’s needs and desires’ (p.245). The champions’ consistent use of co-benefits was counter-productive when they tried to introduce a scheme that did not provide any co-benefits for their colleagues.
The second example in Business A was the introduction of a wormery at one of the offices. This system reduced the amount of left-over food being put into the general waste. Food scraps were put into the wormery and this was turned into compost and liquid feed. This action was again based on an accepted climate
protecting principle – the importance of recycling waste. However, it involved more effort than placing plastic bottles in a recycling bin and it was a little more out of the ordinary. Initially, this particular action was not well received by members of staff.
180
Non-champions were asked to store their food waste and from time to time they were also expected to check on the worms and drain the liquid feed. One champion said that the initial reaction was ‘almost horror’ (A-8, 231). Another champion admitted,
‘I was thinking, that’s a bit sick’ (A-10, 124). However, once the system had been in place for a little while people did become accustomed to it. The first champion explained that ‘when they [members of staff] started to do it they realised what it’s, what it’s for...erm, so it worked, yeah, people, people do buy into it’ (A-8, 233-235).
The introduction of a wormery was not a fundamental change in the same way as giving up a car, but it was an action that required more effort than some of the
‘appropriate’ actions outlined above. Food waste had to be separated and stored and, in some cases, members of staff were asked to get involved in the maintenance of the wormery itself. The promotion of this activity in the first place indicated the
willingness of some of the champions to do something a little bit different. The action presented some of the same issues as the Tupperware dish scheme. There were no direct personal benefits for the people who saved their food waste and it required additional effort. However, in contrast to the Tupperware scheme, individuals did begin to accept the use of the wormery and the benefits it could have for the local community and the protection of the climate. This introduces two important points.
First, champions did have the capacity to think about and promote more revolutionary actions (i.e., those that rejected some components of reformist discourse). Second, and perhaps more importantly, non-champions could accept these types of actions, even if there were no direct benefits for them personally. This might have
implications for the capacity of non-champions themselves to be active agents and subvert dominant discourses. This will be discussed in more detail in section 7.5.
7.2.4 Summary
Overall, ‘inappropriate’ actions were generally rooted in revolutionary climate discourses. The champions did not encourage these kinds of behaviours in the workplace and many of them did not consider them at all until they were asked. Many of the participants felt that giving up driving and flying or engaging in a less
consumer based lifestyle required sacrifice and involved regression. These actions were contrary to a neoliberal account of human nature and a reformist account of social change. There were several participants who were willing to consider the need for fundamental change, but they were in the minority. In section 7.2.3 I discussed the
181
introduction of actions that were a ‘little bit different’. Champions in Business A had tried to introduce the use of Tupperware dishes to replace disposable packaging and they had installed a wormery. The first of these schemes was not well received by employees while the second one was gradually accepted over time. I argued that the introduction of both schemes indicated some revolutionary ideas by the champions.
The acceptance of the wormery indicated that revolutionary actions were not always
‘inappropriate’ and, with a little perseverance, employees might be susceptible to other revolutionary ideas.
7.3 Identifying Climate Discourses VI: The Role of Business, the State and ‘the