Towards a Political Education Through Environmental Issues. Melki Slimani

to the idea of technological efficiency, environmental technologies that develop in the context of a sustainable development project make political content visible in the technological design (Valkenburg 2012).

      Environmental management is a range of tools and procedures aimed at evaluating and subsequently reducing the impact of the activities of one or several businesses through environmental analyses or management control systems. Dohou-Renaud (2009) proposes a classification of environmental management approaches.

      According to the same author (Dohou-Renaud 2009), environmental analyses and environmental management systems are based on two approaches: an environmental management approach called the “product approach” and another called the “organizational approach”:

       – the product approach includes life cycle analyses, which constitute a true environmental cost accounting system that enables an energy balance to be made by evaluating the impact of the production of goods or services on the environment;

       – the organizational approach consists of designing or improving the design of products in order to minimize their impact on the environment by using life cycle analysis, resulting in the communication of environmental labels such as eco-labels.

      Moreover, according to Dohou-Renaud, behind the adoption of these environmental management technologies, there are always institutional pressures from stakeholders such as environmental advocates, market players and organizational players (managers, shareholders, employees, etc.).

      Reed (1996) discussed the issues and contexts that have historically guided theories in organizational science. According to this author, justice appears as a metanarrative framework for organizational analyses in the transitional context towards participatory democracy. In fact, this framework raises fundamental questions in organizational studies about the types of governance and control in contemporary organizations and their moral and political foundations regarding justice. It affirms the centrality of questions relating to the distribution of political, economic and cultural power. The emphasis on practices that cut across organizational structures and processes, such as the state, social class and professions, reveals the strategic role played by power struggles between institutional actors in shaping and reforming systems of rules that guide the political and economic actions of corporations and organizations in general (Reed 1996).

      1.3.6. Issues of transitioning to sustainability

      Transitions are processes of change from systems associated with social services such as housing, transportation, energy, food and water supply to more sustainable systems. They are

      processes of fundamental social change in response to societal challenges. They reflect a particular diagnosis of persistent social problems, in which persistence is attributed to the path dependency of dominant practices and structures (i.e. “regimes”), whose resolution requires long-term and structural change. By their very nature, transitions involve politics in the broadest sense of the word. (Avelino et al. 2016, p. 557)

      According to Loorbach et al. (2017), the concept of regime, defined as a dominant and stable configuration in a societal system, is the most central notion in transition studies. This idea is at the heart of an original perspective in transition analyses: the multi-level perspective (MLP). The latter draws its origins from historical studies of system change on the one hand, and from the evolutionary economy on the other. It recognizes the co-evolutionary development of technologies, institutions and economic subsystems by putting forward the presence of three levels whose dynamics and interactions make it possible to understand transitions: the landscape or macro-level, the regimes or meso-level and the niches or micro-level.

      The landscape (macro) level is composed of the overall socio-technical framework and macro-political developments that form the context of the transition. It is a kind of backdrop for the other two levels by stimulating and exerting pressure on the socio-technical regime.

      The regime (meso) level comprises the structures that represent the practices and routines at stake, such as the rules and dominant technologies that ensure the stability and strengthening of the prevailing socio-technical systems. It can also be a barrier to change technological and social innovations.

      The niche (micro) level is a designated space for experimentation and radical innovation. This level is loosely structured compared to the regime level. It is less influenced by the market and regulation. Coordination between niche actors is weaker than between regime actors. This allows the emergence of new interactions between actors that can support innovation (Loorbach et al. 2017).

      Twomey and Gaziulusoy (2014), in a literature review on innovations and transition theories, note that “socio-technical transitions” is an umbrella term that includes two other perspectives in addition to the multi-level perspective (MLP): the transition management (TM) perspective and the strategic niche management (SNM) perspective. In fact, according to these authors, the latter two perspectives are derived from the former.

      Research in the SNM perspective focuses on the niche level by emphasizing user participation in any early technological development. This approach has been inspired in part by historical studies showing that many successful innovations started as niche technologies and gradually overturned a dominant regime. The main concern of the SNM perspective is to establish processes by which innovative experiences can evolve into viable market niches to contribute to a shift towards a more sustainable socioeconomic environment (Twomey et al. 2014).

      Research in the TM perspective takes a broad system perspective that encompasses the three levels of the MPL perspective framework. It is concerned with the dynamics of structural change in society and the appropriate manner and timing for initiating, facilitating or shaping transformation. As in the MPL perspective, the importance of experimentation and learning is central. However, the starting point for the TM perspective is not a technological innovation but a societal challenge, such as how to meet the demand for energy, transportation or housing in a sustainable manner (Twomey et al. 2014).

      1.3.6.1. Approaches to transition research

      Loorbach et al. (2017) broaden the themes of transitions by proposing a distinction between three research approaches to study them: the socio-technical approach, the socio-institutional approach and the socio-ecological approach. This distinction is based on a comparison of their respective methodological focuses and objectives.

      The socio-technical approach exhausts its references in scientific and technological studies. This approach relies on the MLP perspective as the main analytical tool with the technological innovation systems (TIS) framework.

      The socio-institutional approach draws on the social sciences to understand systemic change in complex societal systems by drawing on economics, political science, sociology, governance studies and geography. It identifies institutionalized cultures, structures and practices as regimes in which transitional changes are taking place. The socio-institutional perspective applies especially to societal systems facing persistent environmental challenges such as mobility, waste management and energy (Loorbach et al. 2017).

      The socio-ecological approach is based on knowledge from ecology, biology, the theory of complex adaptive systems and adaptive governance. It is rooted in ecology and resilience theory, seeking to understand instability in ecosystems, and has evolved to examine coupled socio-ecological systems (Loorbach et al. 2017).

      1.3.6.2. Power relations in transitions

      In the studies on transitions, Avelino and Wittmayer (2016) discuss four types of explicit treatments of the notion of power: a mechanistic perspective, a governance perspective, a horizontal perspective and an emancipatory perspective.

      In the mechanistic perspective, power relations between collective actors (mainly industrial policy makers) constitute