Página Decodificadores

3.3.1 Background

Discourse analysis is a useful tool to study the shared ways of looking at the world called discourses. Discourse analysis is approached from two perspectives; one is mainly directed to the discursive process, the other to the discursive structure. While the first one focuses on communicative processes, the second one focuses on structure and coherence of discourses.

Environmental discourse, in the process perspective, is seen as a communicative process that places into debate belief systems, ideologies, norms and values in society, which are applied to human interrelations and to human relations with the environment (Mühlhäusler & Peace, 2006). It refers not only to the consensual perspective or viewpoint arrived at in such a communicative process, but also the competing and contentious discussions about, for instance, the environmental crises at the global level. In the process perspective, discourses are never static and rarely stable. At any one time there may be multiple and competing discourses in process of flux. Language is the means by which arguments about the relationship between humans and the nature are articulated and certainly the language one uses privileges certain perceptions and actions; expressing matters differently will privilege others. In the discursive processes, the ideas take on a specific meaning and inform particular practices, describing, explaining and justifying human-nature relationships (Benton & Short, 1999). In this perspective, environmental discourse is seen as overarching category with scarce coherence, including different speakers and addresses, and competing metaphors.

In the structural perspective, environmental discourses identify storylines and there can be several distinct discourses for a particular environmental problem (Hajer, 1995). Despite the fact that environmental discourses can be fragmented and contradictory with claims and concerns of a large variety of actors, a discourse, in this perspective, has specific structural characteristics with a certain level of consistence and stability. According to Dryzek (1997) a discourse rests on some common definitions, judgments, assumptions, and contentions. As a result, the way a discourse views the world is not always easily comprehended by those who subscribe to other discourses. The structure of a discourse is important as it conditions the way we define, interpret, and address environmental issues. In this thesis the analysis will mostly be directed to the discursive structure of discourses.

Environmental discourses have vastly increased in recent decades in response to worldwide awareness of environmental crises. There are quite a number of authors that use discourse analysis as a tool to frame concrete environmental problems and environmental politics. For instance, by studying the influence of ecological modernization on the regulation of acid rain in Great Britain and the Netherlands, Hajer (1995) analysed the policy discourse of ecological modernization and how this discourse affected policy making. Litfin (1994) analyzed the changes that have occurred

48 NGOs and the sustainability of SMEs in Peru

in the international discourse on global ozone layer depletion in the 1980s. Environment is also gaining position in contemporary development discourses. For instance, authors such as Ebrahim (2005) use discourse analysis to study the natural resource management approach for rural development in India, putting special attention to the exchange of resources, the power relationships and organizational learning. Moreover, environmental discourses bring the concerns about environmental crises in wider political debates. A study that refers to this is done by Noble (2000), who assesed the degree of influence of NGOs and environmental discourse perspectives in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)’s Declaration of Principles and Agenda 21.

3.3.2 Application of discourse analysis in this thesis

Discourse analysis is used in this thesis to systematically identify the main claims presented in the networks promoting sustainability of SMEs. In investigating these claims we focus on three critical issues for SMEs: market, environment and production. The analysis intends to identify the current discourses promoting sustainability of SMEs, find out their origins and foreseeing their future pathways. Moreover, our analysis intends to point out communalities and differences of discourses, to identify clues for cross fertilization, and to find out to what extent the identified discourses enrich or challenge traditional development discourses. Local perspectives may be as crucial as global ones in analyzing the discourses promoting sustainability of SMEs, so we will not only investigate the adoption of global perspectives at the local level but also the emergence of new perspectives enriching or challenging existing discourses from the local. By mapping the discourses promoting sustainability of SMEs it is possible to understand their constraining and enabling functions in establishing sustainable practices in SMEs.

As suggested by Dryzek (1997) four key variables are identified to map the discourses promoting sustainability of SMEs: (1) basic entities whose existence is acknowledged, (2) assumptions about natural relationships, (3) agents and their motives, and (4) key metaphors and their rhetorical devices. The four variables are structured in storylines for each identified discourse. Basic entities are views and elements that are acknowledged in the discourse. Entities can be, among others, political systems, ideologies and actors whose existence is acknowledged. Entities are the core claims of the discourse. Discourses imply assumptions in the relationships between different entities. The discourse can assume hierarchical relationships based on expertise, or virtue, or both; or equalitarian relationships. Hierarchy implies subordination to other entities. Other assumptions can be on cooperation or competition. Agents are individuals and collectivities that have agency capacities. Thus, agency is understood as having the capacity to act. Agency can be reserved for elites or granted to everybody. Motivations of agents can be material self-interest or public interest, among others. Key metaphors and their rhetorical devices highlight particular situations, issues or concerns in such a way that they express key perspectives of the discourse in a telling and understandable way.

3. Methodology 49