Environmental assessment (EA) is now institutionalized in over 100 countries but is widely criticized by practitioners and analysts for failing to convince decision-makers. Environmental sustainability is still not placed high on the list of criteria influencing project and programme approvals. This paper suggests that the failure of EA reflects the politically contested domain of EA. A framework for the analysis of public participation in EA based on the study of contentious politics is introduced. Public participation is a crucially important condition for influencing decision makers to pursue sustainability objectives, but the effectiveness of public participation is conditional upon characteristics of the coalitions created by diverse stakeholders. The importance of coalitions between local stakeholders and intellectuals is highlighted and exemplified through four cases in the Philippines, Brazil, South Africa and Taiwan where public participation in EA processes is associated with the blockage of large-scale development projects.

No abstract

Summary Industrial symbiosis (IS) is the process by which by‐products are revalorized and exchanged among distinct business entities. The literature suggests that IS can bring financial, social, and environmental benefits to firms and society. Analytical tools have been developed for uncovering IS arrangements and guidelines suggested for designing IS arrangements where they do not yet exist. Despite these suggested benefits and in spite of these tools, few planned IS arrangements have successfully materialized, with notable exceptions in East Asia. Understanding why IS networks emerge and expand or falter requires both macro‐ and micro‐level analysis. Some explanatory factors have been extensively covered in the IS literature, such as the important role of coordinating organizations. But the analysis of enterprise‐level actions and strategies as well as the conditions in the external environment that act on the enterprises and the network are not as well examined. The article outlines an analytical framework that draws upon insights from research on cleaner production, corporate social responsibility, diffusion of innovation, and the role of the state in development. The framework is consistent with the view that the evolution of IS networks is characterized by “equifinality.” Different networks may achieve IS as a result of quite different combinations of factors. No general theory of IS success or decline is offered because no such theory can be expected. IS emergence, development, and disruption is approached as a problem of sociohistorical analysis. For such phenomena, analytical frameworks provide a common explanatory starting point, but no predictive power.

No abstract

No abstract