ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT
Carmin, Balser
/ December
/ ENVIRONMENTAL
2002
MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
Articles
SELECTING REPERTOIRES OF ACTION IN
ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
An Interpretive Approach
JOANN CARMIN
Virginia Tech
DEBORAH B. BALSER
University of Missouri–St. Louis
Environmental movement organizations (EMOs) that have similar goals frequently rely on
different tactics and strategies to advance their agendas. This article uses an interpretive
perspective to examine the factors influencing EMO selection of a repertoire of action.
Building on concepts from organization and social movement theories, and relying on interview and archival data from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, this study suggests that
experience, core values and beliefs, environmental philosophy, and political ideology work
together to create distinct organizational interpretations of the political environment, efficacy of action, acceptability of tactics, significance of an issue, and source of the problem.
These interpretations combine to shape EMO determinations of what types of action will be
most appropriate and effective. Although structural factors influence the decisions that are
made within EMOs, organizations also rely on interpretive processes in their selection of a
repertoire of action.
O
n April 27, 1975, environmental activists around the world took action
to call attention to the impending extinction of whales. One group,
Greenpeace, launched a ship to sail the North Pacific in search of Japanese and
Soviet whaling fleets. Its goal was to find the fishermen and place themselves
between the harpoons and the whales as a means of preventing further killing.
Another group, Friends of the Earth (FOE), called on its members to organize vigils
at Soviet and Japanese government agencies and consulates, to use public service
air time on local TV and radio to raise awareness of the issues, and to write letters to
editors of local newspapers. These differences in tactics extend beyond situations
where these two environmental movement organizations (EMOs) addressed the
same issue. Although both organizations were founded and were mobilizing at
about the same time, early Greenpeace activism was based on nonviolent forms of
Authors’Note: We are grateful to Michael Lounsbury, David S. Meyer, Mayer N. Zald, two anonymous O&E reviewers, and the editor,
John Jermier, for the comments and suggestions they provided on previous drafts and to Cornell University for funding for research
fieldwork. An earlier version of this article received the Best Paper Award from the Organizations and the Natural Environment
Interest Group of the Academy of Management, Denver, Colorado, August, 2002.
Organization & Environment, Vol. 15 No. 4, December 2002 365-388
DOI: 10.1177/1086026602238167
© 2002 Sage Publications
365
366
ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2002
direct action, whereas FOE typically utilized institutional tactics such as lawsuits,
lobbying Congress, testifying at congressional hearings, publishing books, circulating petitions, and placing ads in newspapers.
Organizations associated with the environmental movement frequently focus on
similar goals such as preventing environmental degradation and preserving biological diversity. As the examples of FOE and Greenpeace suggest, although many
EMOs employ different tactics as they address similar issues, each tends to rely on a
consistent set of activities. This raises an important question—What factors lead an
EMO to adopt a particular repertoire of action? The rational analyses associated
with resource mobilization (e.g., McCarthy & Zald, 1977) and political process
models (e.g., McAdam, 1982; Tarrow, 1998) suggest that factors such as organizational structure and political institutions influence the choice of repertoires
(McAdam, 1982; Piven & Cloward, 1977; Staggenborg, 1988; Tarrow, 1998).
Although EMOs engage in sensemaking processes, the prevailing theories do not
acknowledge that these organizations select actions that reflect, as well as reinforce, their values and beliefs and their interpretations of social and political institutions. Although research focusing on the environmental movement has considered
how one interpretive factor, environmental philosophy, influences tactics (e.g.,
Brulle, 2000; Dalton, 1994), it does not distinguish between environmental philosophy and political ideology or consider how additional schema shape EMO repertoires of action.
In this article, we present a framework for understanding how experience, core
values and beliefs, and political ideology complement environmental philosophy
as filters that shape interpretations of the political environment, of what is considered acceptable behavior, and of what actions will be effective. A comparative analysis of FOE and Greenpeace between 1969 and 1976 suggests that environmental
philosophy is one of several interpretive factors influencing repertoire choice, primarily serving to help organizations diagnose issues and situations. Rather than
directly shaping action, all four filters work interdependently to shape interpretations that in turn, lead to repertoire choice. By looking at multiple filters, we are
able to better understand the complexities of organizational sensemaking and the
way that this process contributes to the selection of repertoires of action in EMOs.
ORGANIZATIONAL REPERTOIRES OF ACTION
Organizations within movements may employ a range of tactics, but each typically relies on a set of activities and frequently is characterized by the dominant
approach that it takes when attempting to promote change (Rochon, 1988; Wilson,
1973). A repertoire of action consists of the various forms of activities that are used
by challenging groups in a given historical period (Tilly, 1978). In this article, we
regard the cluster of tactics adopted by an EMO as an organizational repertoire of
action. For organizations in the environmental movement, early repertoires of
action were rooted in lobbying and promotional campaigns. Sierra Club, for example, was known for its recreational activities as well as its educational activities.
Many environmental organizations that emerged in or after the 1970s engaged in
more political and expressive forms of behavior. From among these organizations,
groups such as Earth First! became known for contentious actions consisting of illegal tactics dubbed “monkeywrenching” (Gottlieb, 1993). Repertoires may consist
of institutional tactics such as lobbying, litigation, and educational campaigns or
expressive tactics such as protest, boycotts, and street theatre. Activists draw fur-
Carmin, Balser / ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
367
ther distinctions between repertoires such as those that employ violence versus those
that do not or an institutional reliance on litigation versus educational activities.
Within the major schools of social movement theory (resource mobilization,
political process, and new social movements), most research focuses on an organization’s selection of tactics from among the available repertoires.1 Research examining how and why movement organizations select particular repertoires suggest
that organizational structure is one characteristic that is linked to action. In particular, formalization has been associated with decreased use of disruptive and contentious activities and an increased reliance on institutional approaches to change
(Piven & Cloward, 1977; Staggenborg, 1988). In addition, the resources that social
movement organizations (SMOs) receive may channel and control the types of
actions that they employ (Jenkins & Perrow, 1977; McCarthy, Britt, & Wolfson,
1991). For example, previous research suggests that different environmental philosophies attract funds from different types of donors and, once accepted, lead
recipient EMOs to use tactics that are acceptable to their supporters. These studies
maintain that preservationist organizations are more likely to receive funds from
corporations whereas ecocentric groups like Earth First! typically rely on members
for support. Reflecting the interests of their funders, the former generally rely on
less contentious tactics, and the latter engage in more confrontational acts (Brulle,
2000; Dalton, 1994; Dreiling & Wolf, 2001).
Shifting political opportunities also have been associated with the repertoires
that movement organizations adopt (Tarrow, 1998; Tilly, 1978). According to
Tarrow (1998), political opportunity structure comprises the “consistent—but not
necessarily formal or permanent—dimensions of the political environment that
provide incentives for collective action by affecting people’s expectations for success or failure” (p. 76). Political opportunity refers to the degree of access that individuals and groups have to the political process, with access influenced by conditions such as access to elites and the presence or absence of political cleavages
(Tarrow, 1998). When the opportunity structure is relatively open and accessible,
movement actors typically rely on institutional avenues of influence. In contrast,
when the structure is relatively more closed and difficult to penetrate, activists tend
to adopt more expressive and unconventional repertoires of action (Eisinger, 1973;
Tarrow, 1998).
THE INTERPRETIVE BASIS OF
ORGANIZATIONAL REPERTOIRES OF ACTION
The choice of a repertoire of action is shaped by structural factors and
sociopolitical conditions. It is also determined by the shared values, beliefs, and
understandings of organizational actors. Organizational members do not merely
respond to internal and external conditions but rather engage in a sensemaking process that leads to the development of subjective interpretations of reality (Berger &
Luckmann, 1966; Klandermans, 1991; North, 1990; Weick, 1995). This interpretation is a construction that is shaped by cognitive schema, or filters, that afford a particular, subjective view of situations (Weick, 1995). In other words, a sense-making
perspective suggests that EMOs view the sociopolitical, cultural, and natural environments through different cognitive filters. These filters lead to interpretations and
the construction of meaning that in turn provide a foundation for action.
A variety of cognitive filters can shape the interpretations that contribute to the
selection of a repertoire. According to Dalton (1994) and Brulle (2000), beliefs
about the relationship of humans to nature, or environmental philosophy, is an
368
ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2002
important filter shaping tactical choice in EMOs.2 These studies suggest that similar philosophy should lead to similar types of action. They also indicate that
Greenpeace and FOE have the same environmental philosophy. However, as the
example used at the outset of this article illustrates, these two organizations relied
on different repertoires of action at the same point in time. To address this discrepancy and more fully understand the interpretive basis of action in EMOs, we believe
it is necessary to decouple environmental philosophy from other filters. Based on
previous social movement and organizational research, we distinguish between
four different schema that EMOs use in the sensemaking process: experience, core
values and beliefs, environmental philosophy, and political ideology.
As summarized in Figure 1, these four filters shape interpretations of efficacy,
acceptability of an action, and understandings of opportunities and constraints in
the social and political environments. They also influence organizational interpretations of which issues are significant or problematic and where these problems
originate. The process of identifying a problem and making attributions about its
source is what Snow and Benford (1988) refer to as diagnostic framing. Understanding of the nature of the problem and its causes contributes to prognostic framing or views of possible solutions (Benford & Snow, 2000; Snow & Benford, 1988).
Although each of these filters and the resultant interpretations are discussed separately for analytical purposes, they are interrelated and work together to shape an
organization’s assessment of what repertoire will be most appropriate and suitable.
Experience
Organizations select tactics and repertoires that they believe will be effective
based on personal experience and knowledge (Jasper, 1997; Tarrow, 1998). A number of EMOs were founded when a member became dissatisfied with the way an
existing organization was trying to effect change or wanted to address new issues.
For example, Dave Foreman was a lobbyist with the Wilderness Society who
became disenchanted with the organization’s approach to environmental protection
and self-preservationist tendencies. His experience with the political system and
bureaucratic organizations led him to conclude that they had compromised too
much and saved too little land from development and that more militant tactics,
enacted by an informal group, were needed to preserve the environment. With this
in mind, he became a driving force in the founding of Earth First!, a group
renowned for sabotaging machinery and equipment (Dowie, 1996). Similarly, the
Sea Shepard Society was founded by Paul Watson, an early Greenpeace activist,
after he came to believe that more aggressive tactics were needed to preserve
marine mammals. Members of the Greenpeace staff disagreed with his approach,
and Watson ended up forming a new organization that relied on unlawful and violent tactics such as ramming whaling vessels with his ship after it had been reinforced with concrete, and damaging factory equipment used for processing whale
meat (Brown & May, 1991; Pearce, 1991). In both of these cases, experience led to
the formation of a new organization designed to use a different approach to altering
environmental policy, practices, and institutions.
Core Values and Beliefs
Core values and beliefs contribute to interpretive processes in organizations.
Values are normative views about what should be rather than what is. According to
Schein (1985), values that are expressed and remain at the level of consciousness
Carmin, Balser / ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
369
Interpretations of:
Filters:
•
•
•
Experience
Core values & beliefs
Environmental philosophy
•
•
•
•
•
Efficacy of action
Acceptable tactics
Political environment
Significance of problem
Source of problem
Repertoires of
Action
FIGURE 1: The Relationship of Cognitive Filters to Repertoires of Action
can be used to provide explicit moral guidance. As other values shift out of consciousness, they are transformed into tacit beliefs and assumptions. Although
implicit, they too shape collective ideas and ideals about how the world works and
the way that the organization should go about its business of getting things done
(Schein, 1985). In EMOs, core values and beliefs are views and tenets that are collectively maintained and general in nature yet relevant to these organizations as
they strive to achieve their purposes. Therefore, core values and beliefs in EMOs
include shared perspectives on issues such as violence and unlawful behavior.
The role of core values on SMO repertoires is demonstrated in the case of the
Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Christian theology and Ghandi’s
example of nonviolence in liberating India influenced the belief held by Martin
Luther King that nonviolent civil disobedience was the only acceptable way to win
civil rights for Black Americans. King’s views were adopted by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, leading the organization to rely on a repertoire based
on civil disobedience including tactics such as peaceful protests and marches
(McAdam, 1996). This example also illustrates that the values of the founder and
founding cadre can have a significant influence on the repertoire of action that an
SMO adopts. Frequently, founding ideals become deeply ingrained, not only providing a rationale for organizational existence (Schein, 1985), but also influencing
interpretations of the appropriateness of different repertoires.
Environmental Philosophy
As organizations engage in efforts to address issues such as wilderness and wildlife preservation, pollution remediation, and waste management, they also express
their shared beliefs about the way that we should live, about what is important, and
about the ideal relationship of humans to nature. As a result, EMOs are frequently
characterized by their environmental philosophies or their collective beliefs about
the natural environment and how the relationship of humans to nature should be
structured (Des Jardins, 1997). In contrast to core values and beliefs, which are
broader and more general in scope, environmental philosophy pertains to values
and beliefs specifically related to the natural environment and interactions between
humans and nature.
Dalton (1994) suggested that the environmental philosophies of EMOs can be
consolidated into two categories. Organizations fitting within the broad category of
conservationist are generally concerned with wilderness and wildlife preservation
whereas ecology groups typically address issues of environmental degradation.
370
ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2002
More recent discussions make finer distinctions between different perspectives.
For example, Brulle (2000) suggested that there are nine different “philosophical
discourses” that EMOs adopt, including reform environmentalism, deep ecology,
ecofeminism, and environmental justice.3 Environmental philosophy contains ethical and moral principles about what is right and what is wrong with respect to the
natural environment and the relationship of humans to nature. Inherent in these
principles are prescriptions that may help determine what types of action are appropriate (Des Jardins, 1997). In addition, Dreiling and Wolf (2001) maintained that
the environmental philosophy of an EMO contributes to diagnostic framing by
helping an organization identify and define environmental problems and assign
responsibility.
Political Ideology
In a critique of resource mobilization as a “value-free” explanation for collective
action, the concept of ideologically structured action (ISA) was introduced to
explain how ideology influences the behavior of SMOs (Dalton, 1994; Zald, 2000).
The work on ISA brings social movement scholarship back to the idea that ideology
and other sensemaking processes play a role in shaping collective behavior.4 ISA
specifically refers to behavior that is shaped by ideology—or systems of beliefs—
and ideas about social relations and the social and political systems that organizational members use to make sense of the sociopolitical environment (Zald, 1996,
2000). Consisting of cognitive, evaluative, and normative components, ideology
can be thought of as “a system of meaning that couples assertions and theories
about the nature of social life with values and norms relevant to promoting or resisting social change” (Oliver & Johnston, 2000, p. 43). As this definition suggests,
because ideology consists of a set of beliefs about how the world should work, it
facilitates comparisons with beliefs about how the world does work and suggests
appropriate activities for promoting or resisting change.
One type of ideology, political ideology, is composed of theories and values that
influence a group’s understanding of how the political process functions and how it
should be constructed. Whereas core values and beliefs consist of normative views
and moral tenets that are general in nature, political ideology is composed of values
and beliefs that are specific to the political environment. Political ideology may be
categorized according to different systems of political beliefs such as liberalism
and socialism. Political ideologies can also represent a wider range of ideas about
how the world should function, including systems of beliefs such as feminism and
environmentalism (Garner, 1996). These normative views shape interpretations
and critiques of the existing sociopolitical system.
Political ideology plays a critical role in the selection of a repertoire of action in
EMOs by shaping interpretations of the institutional environment. Friedland and
Alford (1991) suggested that the institutional environment is delineated by social,
political, and economic institutions, to name a few, each of which has its own “institutional logic.”5 In the organizational literature, the logics of specific institutions
typically are presented as objectified and unitary (Haveman & Rao, 1997; Thornton &
Ocasio, 1999). However, a sensemaking lens suggests that SMOs interpret institutions (Gamson, 1996; Jasper, 1997; Klandermans, 1992; Meyer, 1993a, 1993b).
For example, EMOs operating in or addressing issues associated with democracy
do not view this as an objective institution but interpret and view this political institution in different ways. Groups with a liberal democratic ideology generally regard
Carmin, Balser / ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
371
democratic institutions as having multiple points of entry and high levels of access
to all those who wish to participate in the political process. In contrast, neo-Marxists
would argue that only those interest groups associated with the dominant class have
sufficient resources and power to gain access to the bargaining arena (Held, 1996).
These distinct interpretations of the same political system will contribute to decisions about what repertoire of action will be effective.
Linking Filters and Interpretations
to Repertoires of Action
Experience, core values and beliefs, environmental philosophy, and political
ideology contribute to interpretive processes that take place within EMOs that in
turn shape the selection of a repertoire. Experience primarily shapes views of efficacy of action whereas core values and beliefs tend to establish guidelines that
members use to assess the acceptability of particular forms of action. Environmental philosophy helps EMO members determine the source and significance of environmental issues. Furthermore, political ideology guides interpretations of the
institutional environment and shapes views of what actions EMO members believe
will or will not be effective. Although each filter generally is associated with a specific interpretive domain, this does not preclude the possibility that a filter may
affect an alternative domain. In other words, although experience is tightly coupled
with views of efficacy, it also informs interpretations of how the political system
works. The interpretations stemming from the four filters establish informal guidelines, creating parameters that members draw on to determine what types of action
are and are not acceptable and are most likely to be effective in achieving their
goals. That is, the choice of repertoire is the result of a sensemaking process that is
facilitated or constrained by members’ judgments about whether a given repertoire
is consistent with the multiple interpretations that stem from the group’s experience, core values and beliefs, environmental philosophy, and political ideology.
RESEARCH METHODS
To investigate the relationship between cognitive filters, interpretations, and
organizational repertoires of action, FOE and Greenpeace were studied from
founding into their early years of existence, encompassing the period from 1969 to
1976. In selecting EMOs, we held constant the point of founding, period of investigation, and degree of internal change taking place. By tracking organizations during the same period of time, we were able to control for different political administrations, policies, and social conditions. We also sought out groups that had
concurrent periods of relative organizational stability so that recollections of interpretations and of activism would not be overshadowed by memories of heightened
conflict and other internal dynamics. Because both organizations underwent major
structural and administrative changes in the late 1970s and early 1980s, we examined the period from founding through to 1976. Furthermore, because we wanted to
understand the impact of interpretive forces beyond environmental philosophy, we
also selected organizations that appeared to be the same on this dimension. Following principles articulated by Ragin (1987) on comparative case design, we sought
organizations with variations in their repertoires so that we could assess the factors
that contributed to seemingly similar EMOs selecting different forms of action.
372
ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2002
Data for the narratives that follow were obtained through semistructured, indepth interviews conducted with 14 representatives from FOE and 15 representatives from Greenpeace. Study participants were selected based on their role and
position within the organizations. We sought out founding members as well as
influential campaign coordinators, executive directors, board members, and
administrative personnel. These individuals were identified through organizational
newsletters, through newspaper reports, and by other participants during the course
of their interviews. Each person was initially contacted by telephone and asked if he
or she would participate in the study. Although everyone who was contacted agreed
to participate, there were several people who were identified as potential informants but who could not be located, could not be contacted, or had passed away.
At the outset of each interview, the nature and purpose of the study were
explained and participants were given the opportunity to ask questions about the
research. Each individual was asked to sign a consent form indicating that he or she
understood the nature of the study and that his or her participation was voluntary.
Participants also were asked to indicate whether their name and position title could
be used in published materials. A protocol consisting of 12 questions was used to
structure the interview. These questions focused on the person’s role and experience with the organization, perceptions of organizational values and beliefs, views
of the institutional environment, and recollections of organizational strategy and
tactics. Responses to the questions served as points of departure for in-depth discussion of key issues raised by participants, particularly as they related to the interpretive processes being elaborated in this study. Although a limited number of
interviews were completed, as maintained by McCracken (1988), it is not essential
to have a large number of participants if in-depth interviews are conducted. The
interviews for this study ranged in duration from 60 minutes to 3 hours, lasting an
average of 90 minutes. All of the interviews were audiotaped and then transcribed.
The interviews were supplemented with documentary, archival, and print
sources. The New York Times Index was systematically reviewed to identify newspaper articles written about the two organizations. The articles provided a general
overview of issues being addressed by the organizations and major changes in organizational leadership and mission. Articles in The Washington Post, the Los
Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle also were consulted to clarify and
verify information found in The New York Times. Organizational documents such
as newsletters and articles of incorporation were reviewed to understand leadership
trends, issue orientation, and general organizational mission. Archival collections
for Greenpeace, located in the City of Vancouver Archives, and for FOE, housed at
the University of Washington in Seattle and the University of California at Berkeley, were reviewed. Documents pertaining to internal operations and administrative
decisions such as meeting minutes, legal records, memos, position papers, and correspondence were examined.
Following the methodology of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), data
analysis and model development progressed through an iterative process based on
successive readings of the interview transcripts. Initially, we each read the transcripts with the goal of identifying key passages related to espoused values and
beliefs, perspectives on the relationship of humans to the natural environment,
views of political institutions and processes, and repertoires of action. At this stage,
we also were aware that additional factors might be related to the selection of repertoires. We found that the categories we identified at the outset were present, but it
also was necessary to account for the role of the founder and previous experience.
Having identified key filters and repertoires used by the two organizations, we then
Carmin, Balser / ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
373
looked for interpretations that linked these two factors together. To assess the model
of collective sensemaking and action that was emerging, we arrayed blocks of text
into a matrix based on procedures outlined by Miles and Huberman (1984). The
completed matrix was used to examine similarities and differences between the two
organizations and the relationships between filters, interpretations, and repertoires.
Because this is an interpretive study, analysis and theory development were
based on sensemaking processes illustrated in the interview data. However, archival sources were used to verify dates and actions and enhance understanding of
each organization’s history. Although retrospective data are vulnerable to bias from
partial or inaccurate recall, we triangulated among multiple interviewees as well as
with the archival data. The narratives of FOE and Greenpeace that follow were written to portray the dynamics of organizational emergence, the integrated nature of
interpretations stemming from the four filters, and how this sensemaking process
influences repertoire choice.
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH (FOE)
FOE was formed in 1969 by David Brower, after he resigned from his position as
executive director of the Sierra Club. Renowned as one of the most effective conservationists and innovative environmental thinkers in the United States, Brower’s
activities brought acclaim to the Sierra Club. He believed that conservation battles
were never won. The best that could be achieved was a “stay of execution” for the
earth’s wild places and environmental quality. He maintained that rather than focusing on outdoor and recreational activities, the Sierra Club should provide a “voice
for causes that might otherwise have no voice at all” (Devall, 1970, p. 219). To
accomplish this vision, Brower tried to shift the club from a society of hiking companions to a more proactive and politically engaged organization. These actions led
to claims that he was unwilling to respond to the board’s directives, was financially
irresponsible, and was too radical.
In his resignation speech, Brower announced that he would form a new environmental organization that would be international, aggressive, and noncompromising.
FOE’s mission was to do whatever needed to be done to achieve “the preservation,
restoration and rational use of the earth” (FOE letterhead, University of Washington archives) through a range of activities including “conservation publishing,
political action, legislative lobbying, litigation, and international environmental
efforts” (Brower, 1991, p. 155). The decision to engage in institutional forms of
political action was a departure from the prevailing repertoire of action employed
by environmentalists at that time. Because most environmental groups were still
focusing on recreational and educational activities, political activity of any sort was
innovative and radical.
Because the goal of FOE was to engage in political activity, the organization was
founded as a 501(c)(4) corporation. Brower believed that organizations should get
small amounts of money from many people because major donors often do not like
controversy and may believe they are empowered to dictate organizational actions
and priorities. Since FOE did not initially have tax-deductible status and was not
seeking foundation, corporate, or major donor support, the main source of funding
was through membership dues and individual contributions. Although dues and
contributions were not tax deductible, by the end of 1969, approximately 1,000
people had paid $15.00 to join the organization. By 1979, membership swelled to
approximately 30,000 and dues increased to $25.00 per year. In addition to raising
funds from membership dues, FOE produced and sold publications. Early books
374
ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2002
included The Environmental Handbook, which sold more than 1 million copies, and
the SST and Sonic Handbook. These sources of funds were not enough to cover the
organization’s expenses, and by 1972, FOE had amassed debts that continued to
plague it throughout the decade (Carmin, 1993).
Much of Brower’s—a charismatic man’s—vision of what needed to be done and
how it could be achieved was injected into FOE and strongly influenced the organization’s identity. According to Dave Phillips (personal communication, October
27, 1992), director of wildlife programs,6 “Friends of the Earth was a manifestation
of Dave [Brower’s] ideology. It was autonomous, grassroots, far more progressive,
[and acknowledged] far more interconnections between issues that [previously]
wouldn’t have been thought of as really truly environmental issues.” Despite
Brower’s imprint on FOE, membership was inclusive, and the organization’s evolution reflected the varied interests and expertise of its staff and members.
Friends of the Earth, as an organization, really sort of put a premium on finding,
identifying, and incorporating people that were doing innovative things. . . . The
plan was to locate and energize activists. The abilities for the organization to move
ahead became dependent on finding good people . . . as opposed to deciding that
we were gonna work on [an issue like] tropical rainforests [and then saying], Now
how do we put together a program and who are we gonna hire? It was more like,
This person’s doing fantastic work on the rainforest; let’s find a way that that work
can be done within the confines of the organization. (Dave Phillips, personal communication, October 27, 1992)
FOE staff members shared an environmental philosophy that according to
Brulle (2000) is best characterized as reform environmentalism. An ecological perspective, which views the natural environment as an ecosystem in which all species
are interdependent and equally important, permeated the organization. Members of
the FOE staff expressed the broader societal transition that was taking place from
viewing humans as being dominant over nature to regarding humans as an integral
part of an ecological system.
It is a vision of a world in which humanity has come to terms with nature, treating it
like a friend to be lived with in harmony and peace, rather than as an enemy to be
degraded and destroyed. It is a world in which man recognizes that . . . the development, even the very continuance, of our civilization is dependent on a decent
respect for the resource base of this planet. (Oakes, 1980, p. ix)
Members maintained that “mankind is not apart from nature; humans are a strand in
the web of life” (Randy Hayes, special projects, FOE, personal communication,
October 27, 1992). This perspective was exemplified in the name of the organization’s newsletter, Not Man Apart.
Not Man Apart represents a very important philosophical core that most environmental groups do not have. It’s a term that comes from a Robinson Jeffers poem. It
means mankind is not apart from nature. We are a strand in the web of life. And to
me, that really is—it’s not a cliché. It’s a very fundamental, important distinction
between a number of different groups. I don’t find that in most environmental
groups. (Randy Hayes, personal communication, October 27, 1992)
FOE’s environmental philosophy established a framework for diagnosing and
identifying environmental problems based on a vision of ecosystem preservation.
Carmin, Balser / ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
375
FOE . . . exists to reduce the impact of human activity on the environment and to
ensure that we as a species adopt policies which permit life in its varied and beautiful forms to continue. But FOE cannot thrive in isolation any more than a single
species can. . . . We must know our relationship to the other components of that
system, benign and hostile, and we must learn to act appropriately to our surroundings. We cannot force the world to adopt our views, values, and policies, but we
can construct, together with other institutions, a web of political life that will have
no place for exploitative values, destructive technologies, and dehumanized relationships. (Burke, 1979, p. 16)
A philosophy of reform environmentalism contributed to an ecosystem view of the
environment and shaped the attributions that FOE members made about sources of
pollution and environmental degradation. They asserted that in many instances,
specific environmental problems had large-scale and integrated impacts that were
due to unsustainable forms of development (David Ortman, Northwest representative, FOE, personal communication, October 22, 1992). David Gancher (assistant
editor, FOE, personal communication, October 26, 1992), assistant editor of Not
Man Apart, articulated FOE’s views of unchecked development:
Our analysis said industrial society is promoting consumerism, pollution, and
waste because it employs an artificially short-term form of economics which
agrees, for example, that there is such a concept as “away”—a place where you
could throw something. It could be away and therefore not part of the discourse
anymore. And what we said is, there is no such thing as “away.”
Legalism was a core value that guided FOE as it worked to accomplish its goals.
Staff members had strong and positive views about the legitimacy of legal and political structures. Accordingly, their interpretation of the legal system provided citizens with obligations and rights to effect change. To FOE, not only was it feasible or
efficacious to use institutional tactics, it was the right thing to do.
[FOE] would never have been comfortable taking direct action in the Earth First!/
Greenpeace kind of way. To the extent that Friends of the Earth has always tended
to operate within the law, lobbying for changes in government, that would be an
idea that has always been true. Friends of the Earth was not ever a law-breaking
organization. . . . I think the idea that one lobbies for change through government
has always been a characteristic of the organization. (Alan Gussow, member of the
board of directors, FOE, personal communication, January 19, 1993)
Now there’s nothing wrong with having somebody say, “I am against cutting down
native forests and I’m gonna climb up in the tree and prevent you from cutting the
tree down.” That’s one role. Friends of the Earth’s was, “You’re not gonna cut the
trees down because I have everything to show you that its environmentally unacceptable, economically wrong, it’s this, it’s that, it’s part of a bigger picture.”
Essentially, try to blow them away with the reasoning of it. (Dave Phillips, personal communication, October 27, 1992)
In FOE’s early years, the core value of legalism combined with a political ideology
that reflected views and beliefs typically associated with participatory democracy.
Members maintained a pluralist view of the political system, believing that there
were multiple points of access, opportunities for public participation, and that the
policy process was responsive to citizen’s concerns. Consequently, FOE engaged in
legislative and political action, relying on a full complement of institutionally based
376
ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2002
tactics such as lobbying, supporting environment-friendly candidates, and litigation. This approach was more than a pragmatic reaction to environmental degradation—it reflected FOE staff members’shared view of how democracy worked in the
United States.
FOE promoted its position of an accessible polity and the use of institutional
modes of political activity in its publications. For example, in the foreword to
Voter’s Guide to Environmental Politics, Brower (1970, p. ix) wrote,
The Constitution foresaw the need for change and provided a route to change. It is
possible, we in Friends of the Earth are convinced, to use the good parts of the System to beat the bad parts of the System.
In the same foreword, he also noted,
It is important to remember that the present system is devised to give people in
political life the maximum opportunity of reelection. This is an opportunity of
which they think highly. Those of us who do not want to enter that life and assume
the chores of holding office are nevertheless entitled to protest vigorously the inequities of the present system. We can do so most effectively if we have also worked
creatively to build public support for the political leaders who support governmental reform on behalf of the environment. (p. xv)
In the foreword to Progress as if Survival Mattered, Brower (1981) wrote,
Whatever kind of country and world people decide they want, the next question is,
how can they get it? Probably by gaining a new understanding of politics. Politics
is democracy’s way of handling public business. There is no other. We won’t get
the kind of country in the kind of world we want unless people take part in the public’s business. Unless they embrace politics and people in politics.
The participatory and pluralist view of the political environment maintained by
FOE was closely linked to the repertoire of action that was used by the group to pursue its agenda. In particular, political access and influence were thought to derive
from an orchestrated combination of public participation and direct lobbying.
Ortman (personal communication, October 22, 1992) stated,
I always conceptualize how grassroots field offices and lobbying fit together as the
experience of going into a senator or representative’s office and saying, How does
Senator So and So feel about this bill? And what the senator’s aide would say is,
“Beats me. We haven’t gotten any mail on it so it’s not an issue in our state or district.” Well that was a clue that you had not done your homework and needed to go
back and contact your members or somebody to make calls and stir up the pot so
that the next time you went in and said, “How does the senator feel about the issue
this week?” it would be, “Oh God, we’ve gotten a whole pile of letters, and now
I’ve gotta deal with it, so tell me what’s going on here.” To me, that’s how access
works. . . . If you’re sending in letters and no one is there working your issue in DC,
the staff person never gets someone to come around and say, “How does the senator feel about this issue?” and they never have to answer for it, and they get by with
returning form letters. So I’ve always seen the politics as very much needing that
grassroots response in order to make the lobbying work and vice versa.
Throughout its early years, FOE addressed numerous issues including banning
pesticides, preventing the building of the Alaska oil pipeline, fostering indigenous
Carmin, Balser / ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
377
rights, and promoting renewable energy. These diverse campaigns were rooted in
an institutional repertoire. For example, in 1973, FOE initiated a pesticide campaign that focused on preventing the bill banning DDT from being overturned. Its
activities combined testifying before the agriculture committee and urging members to write their elected representatives to oppose all bills that would overturn the
ban (Not Man Apart, 1974). To prevent the Alaska pipeline from being built, FOE
joined with the Environmental Defense Fund and the Wilderness Society to file the
first suit under the auspices of the National Environmental Policy Act. In an energy
campaign in 1974, FOE joined a coalition of environmental organizations to place a
“Safe Nuclear Energy” initiative on the California ballot. As these examples illustrate, FOE members tried to shape laws and regulations by testifying before Congress and creating ballot initiatives, tried to enforce policies through lawsuits and
the courts, and tried to mobilize the public by urging them to contact their elected
officials.
As suggested in the narrative, Brower’s experience led him to conclude that
approaches commonly used at the time to address environmental issues were ineffective. This founding perspective, in combination with a core value of legalism,
contributed to organizational interpretations that an aggressive yet institutional repertoire was the appropriate approach to take to effect political change. FOE’s environmental philosophy of reformism contributed to the interpretation that environmental issues were interrelated with each other and stemmed from unsustainable
development. As a result, FOE tried to resolve problems that they believed cut
across more than one environmental issue. Political ideology was aligned with
views generally associated with participatory democracy and contributed to an
interpretation that the political system had multiple points of access and was
responsive to EMO influences. Together, these interpretations contributed to FOE’s
adopting an institutional repertoire that consisted of multiple forms of action
directed at all levels of the political process.
GREENPEACE
Greenpeace was founded as the Don’t Make a Wave Committee by Jim Bohlen
and Irving Stowe, two Americans who moved to Canada in 1967 because they disagreed with the United States’involvement in the Vietnam War and with its policies
on nuclear weapons development and testing. Bohlen and Stowe were instrumental
in forming the Vancouver chapter of the Sierra Club. Although the chapter was relatively independent, they were not permitted to undertake any major activities without the consent of the club. By 1969, the two men had become concerned with the
underground nuclear tests that the United States was planning to conduct at the
Aleutian Island of Amchitka. They believed that the tests would cause tidal waves
and earthquakes and would injure the endangered sea otter population that resided
in the area. Acting as Sierra Club representatives, Bohlen and Stowe announced
that they were going to stage a protest by sailing a ship to Amchitka. This idea was
proposed by Marie Bohlen when she recounted how Quakers sailed two ships to
Bikini Atoll in 1958 to protest atmospheric testing of hydrogen bombs. When the
Sierra Club would not give its approval for the idea, the men founded the Don’t
Make a Wave Committee in 1970 with the sole mission of stopping the detonation
of nuclear warheads at Amchitka. In 1972, the group formally changed its name to
the Greenpeace Foundation and adopted a broader set of goals and objectives.
Quaker values and beliefs had a significant influence on Greenpeace. Several of
the founding members of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee were Quakers.
378
ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2002
Knowledge and awareness of previous Quaker actions at Bikini Atoll provided a
foundation for selecting tactics in response to emerging nuclear threats. Core values stemming from the Quaker religion led members to employ a Quaker strategy
called bearing witness and to adopt the Quaker principle of nonviolence.
The concept of bearing witness which is the basic Quaker action component . . .
that is what differentiates Greenpeace from Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and
other groups like that is that we actually go out there . . . and the fact that they’re
nonviolent. . . . We don’t even consider the destruction of property to be appropriate whereas a lot of so called nonviolent direct action organizations engage in
ecotage like hammering nails in trees and doing things like that. We won’t have no
part of that. (Jim Bohlen, founding member, Greenpeace, personal communication, October 15, 1992)
The initial bylaws of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee (Stowe, 1971) state that
the organization “will raise funds, primarily by donation, for the purposes of
acquiring a boat to sail to Amchitka.” To achieve this goal, Bohlen and Stowe made
appeals to organizations and individuals. Through these efforts, they obtained contributions from diverse groups such as the British Columbia Association of Social
Workers, Pollution Probe, Voice of Women, and Zero Population Growth. In addition, they hawked buttons on street corners, sold T-shirts in local bookstores, and
organized a benefit rock concert. Although they were successful in raising funds for
the Amchitka voyage, as well as the initial Moruroa voyage, by the mid-1970s, the
organization had massive debt. At the same time, independent groups using the
Greenpeace name were springing up around the world. Although efforts were made
to centralize the organization in Vancouver in 1977, it took until 1979, when
Greenpeace Europe paid the Canadian debt and united the independent organizations under the umbrella of Greenpeace International, for internal coordination to
emerge.
In the early and mid-1970s, the environmental philosophy at Greenpeace represented emerging ideas and ideals about the natural environment. The Don’t Make a
Wave Committee and Greenpeace went beyond the preservationist philosophy of
Sierra Club by viewing war and nuclear weapons as destructive to people, to animals, and to the environment. The Don’t Make a Wave Committee was expressly
dedicated to preventing nuclear proliferation. Becoming the Greenpeace Foundation expanded the focus of the organization so that environmental issues had equal
status with the organization’s peace and antinuclear efforts. In other words, the new
organization united emerging perspectives on environmental protection with a
commitment to peaceful preservation of all species. As Sebia Hawkins (personal
communication, November 20, 1992), co-coordinator of the Pacific Ocean Campaign, stated, “there are two faces to the organization. . . . One is that we protect animals, and the other is that we protect humans in our environment.” By embracing an
ecological ethic based on respect for all living creatures and appreciation for the
interdependence and equality of species, the Greenpeace philosophy is aligned
with Brulle’s (2000) characterization of reform environmentalism.7
From the outset, Greenpeace’s ecological beliefs were inseparable from concerns about dominance and the misuse of power. As noted by Lewis Crews (personal communication, November 20, 1992), national canvass director,
you can’t just say that protecting a marine mammal or an ecosystem is all that we
can do because economic justice is tied to whether or not the marine mammal or an
Carmin, Balser / ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
379
ecosystem gets to exist, and social justice is tied to issues like the waste trade and
that communities of color get toxics dumped on them, get incinerators built in their
neighborhood. . . . So, in other words . . . environmentalism doesn’t stand separate
from work on social justice or economic justice.
Similar to FOE, reform environmentalism contributed to interpretations that
humans and nature were interdependent, leading them to maintain that the consequences of an isolated activity could have wide-reaching impacts. For example,
bomb testing would not only affect local sea otters but also put pollutants in the
atmosphere that could harm human health across the planet and alter plant and animal life throughout the ecosystem.
Diagnostic framing at Greenpeace resulted in an interpretation that governments
and corporations were powerful and highly organized actors that imposed their
interests and preferences on others. Early actions, such as the voyages to Amchitka
and Mororoa, were directed at national governments. However, they maintained
that “most of the root causes of environmental problems had to do with concentrated capital and multinational corporations” (David Chatfield, regional director,
Greenpeace, personal communication, October 29, 1992). Although governments
had the power to take action to stop corporate pollution, from the perspective of
Greenpeace, “governments are limited in what they can do and what they can take
initiative in” (David Chatfield, personal communication, October 29, 1992)
because political and economic interests are interdependent.
People have lost control because major corporations have come in and taken over
decision making . . . and things are happening in their backyards that they wouldn’t
otherwise allow if they had the power and ability. (Natasha Van Bentum, planned
giving coordinator, Greenpeace, personal communication, October 14, 1992)
An environmental philosophy based on interconnections and natural rights led
members of Greenpeace to a prognostic frame that claimed all human beings
should have equal access to a green and peaceful planet. Although environmental
and antinuclear activities are distinct, they both reflect the organization’s views
about power imbalances in the American social and political systems. It is therefore
up to individuals and organizations like Greenpeace to expose and stop both governmental and corporate injustice and exploitation. The sentiment that power can
rest with individuals and that each person can make a difference was a fundamental
belief about change that was shared by members.
Part of what causes social injustice is a lack of power, and so people know when
they are disempowered. You don’t have to go in and say you don’t have a voice.
They already know that. What you need to tell them is how to have a voice. (Nina
Dessart, assistant to the regional director, Greenpeace, personal communication,
October 29, 1992)
As powerless as you might feel, you can do something about it and there we were,
three men in a little tub, bob, bob, bob, and people picked up on the romance of the
situation I suppose, the David and Goliath aspect of it. . . . And I suppose in some
small measure [I] felt some empowerment. The little guy can do something. He
can make a difference. (Lyle Thurston, physician, Amchitka voyage, Greenpeace,
personal communication, October 16, 1992)
380
ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2002
Belief in the power of the individual is balanced by the realization that individuals must work collectively to have sufficient influence to alter the actions of elite
interests. As Crews (personal communication, November 20, 1992) stated, “people
come into this organization wanting to make a difference, wanting to see change,
and understanding that there is power in numbers.” Although each person has free
will and voice, only when individuals are united by a common vision and are working together toward a common goal do they amass enough power to effectively
challenge corporate and governmental entities.
The ideal of achieving equity for all species and the perception that political and
economic institutions are powerful adversaries that can only be countered by a
coordinated and equal force if change is to be realized is reflected in the repertoire
employed by Greenpeace. Since its inception, Greenpeace has been renowned for
nonviolent direct action that captures the public imagination. Direct actions project
an image of a radical and almost whimsical organization composed of people who
risk their lives for the environment. “Greenpeace is something that gets out and
does something. Direct action is a fundamental root” (Jane McAslan, office manager, Greenpeace, personal communication, October 15, 1992). Direct action
established the Don’t Make a Wave Committee and Greenpeace as action-oriented
organizations. Reflecting the desire to promote equity and Quaker roots in bearing
witness and nonviolence, Steve D’Esposito (personal communication, November
20, 1992), acting executive director, noted, “Greenpeace is about standing in the
way, it’s about taking direct action, it’s about getting in people’s faces, it’s about
exposing what is really going on.” Civil disobedience has kept the organization in
the public eye while it demonstrated dissatisfaction with existing policies, political
processes, and corporate practices.
On an environmental scale, most direct actions are inconsequential. Plugging a
pipe or impeding a whaling vessel’s progress only alters corporate or governmental
activities temporarily. What these actions do achieve is the production of a message
that directs public attention to a specific organization and to a general environmental issue. Registering an objection with nonviolent methods is a strategy that brings
attention to a situation without compromising basic human dignity. Direct actions
were carefully orchestrated and employed when members believed that other tactics would not or could not have the desired effect.
Greenpeace is not just boys in boats. Greenpeace is scientists and people with
political expertise, economists. The public face of the organization still remains
the direct actions that seize the public imagination and that the media will run. But
behind that public face is a level of analysis that I think a lot of people are not aware
of and that more than anything about this organization is the huge diversity and
expertise that goes in to formulating campaign development. (Catherine Stewart,
campaign director, ocean ecology, Greenpeace, personal communication, October
7, 1992).
Although there is a consistent view of the importance of direct action and impact
of expressive tactics, organizational members have different perspectives on the
role of compromise. As Chatfield (personal communication, October 29, 1992)
noted, “I’d say there is a sense of radicalness that is common that says that you don’t
want half solutions and compromise solutions.” Similarly, Dessart (personal communication, October 29, 1992) suggested, “We have a hard line. We know who the
bad guys are and we can be direct and not compromising and in their face.” Organizational members recognize that for social change to occur, opposing parties may
Carmin, Balser / ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
381
need to alter their initial positions. Accordingly, Peter Dykstra (personal communication, December 26, 1992), national media director, maintained that members
believe that a position could be modified if the outcome is consistent with the organization’s fundamental tenets.
It’s not a question of whether or not one has to compromise, because I think that
realistically, somebody has to compromise somewhere. It’s a question of whether
you compromise by watering down your stance on specific issues so as not to
offend or whether you compromise by saying, This issue is a lost cause if we water
down our stance. We’re not gonna water down our principles. I’d rather take the
option of offending somebody, thank you very much.
Staff members may have tried a variety of approaches to address issues, but their
perception that the political arena was dominated by powerful adversaries and
therefore relatively closed and inaccessible to the average person contributed to the
organization’s reliance on direct action.
In the early years, Greenpeace conducted select campaigns and relied on a repertoire that is best described as nonviolent direct action. In 1971, and again in 1972
and 1973, Greenpeace sailed ships to bear witness with the goal of stopping atmospheric nuclear testing at Amchitka and Moruroa. Although there was some resistance by the founding members to expanding the range of issues the organization
addressed, in 1973 Project Ahab was initiated to confront whaling fleets in midocean. By 1975, the organization was dominated by staff members who focused on
the preservation of sea mammals. In that year, the Save the Whales campaign was
officially launched, and activists confronted Soviet whalers off the coast of California, whereas in 1976, they traveled to the Arctic icepack to intercept the Norwegian
fleet in its attempts to skin harp seal pups. The activists planned on spraying the
seals with nontoxic green paint so that their white pelts would be unmarketable. The
Canadian government and local Newfoundlanders were opposed to Greenpeace
tactics and rapidly passed laws making their intended actions illegal. Although they
agreed that they would not spray the seals, unwilling to give up, the activists
decided to focus their efforts on blocking the fleet from harvesting seals by placing
themselves between the pups and their hunters (Brown & May, 1991).
The Greenpeace narrative provides evidence that the founders’ experiences and
values as Quakers contributed to an organizational understanding that nonviolent
direct action was an appropriate and effective way to address issues of concern. A
philosophy of reform environmentalism shaped Greenpeace’s interpretation of the
impacts that human action could have on human and ecosystem health. In particular, members attributed environmental problems to concentrated capital and corporate power and consequently developed a prognostic frame that they should alleviate power imbalances. Diagnostic framing, in combination with the organization’s
political ideology, led to an interpretation that political institutions and processes
were relatively inaccessible and unresponsive to institutional tactics. These four filters contributed to a consistent interpretation of the sociopolitical and natural environments in which a repertoire rooted in nonviolent direct action was regarded as
the most suitable way to effect change.
DISCUSSION
The narratives illustrate a sensemaking process in which multiple filters and
interpretations influenced the repertoires of action adopted by FOE and
382
ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2002
Greenpeace. Table 1 characterizes these two organizations with respect to each of
the cognitive filters addressed in this study. Members of both organizations viewed
the natural environment from a reform environmentalist perspective. Based on an
ecosystems view, this philosophy contributed to organizational members’ regarding environmental issues as well as developing their plans for action through a lens
in which they viewed all species as interconnected. The environmental philosophy
was the same in both organizations, but experience as well as core values and
beliefs in the two organizations varied. FOE was founded in response to the Sierra
Club’s policies. Brower’s experience with the organization led him to conclude that
a more aggressive approach to environmental protection was necessary. As this
view was translated into action, it was conditioned by a shared and strong belief in
the legitimacy of the law and the legal process. Greenpeace also had origins in the
Sierra Club but was founded to address the specific issue of nuclear testing at
Amchitka Island. As Quakers, experience with bearing witness led the founding
members to believe that this approach would encourage individuals, organizations,
and institutions to take responsibility for resolving environmental problems. In
addition, the Quaker tenet of nonviolence was a core value that influenced the tactics that Greenpeace adopted.
Another key factor distinguishing the two organizations was their political ideology and the way each interpreted advanced democracy and the degree of access to
the political process that it affords to nongovernmental and noncorporate actors.
The participatory ideology and pluralist interpretation of the political environment
maintained by staff members at FOE contributed to their perceptions that there
were multiple points of access to the political process. They believed that the nature
of the legislative and electoral processes led elected officials to be responsive to
participation by environmental activists. Consequently, FOE sought political influence through a combination of practices such as testimony before Congress, letterwriting campaigns to legislators, litigation, and direct lobbying. FOE adopted more
aggressive tactics than were previously associated with environmental organizations, but these activities still relied on institutional political forums. Although
members of Greenpeace do not refer to themselves as neo-Marxists, their ideas
appear to parallel this political ideology. In particular, they viewed democratic governments as exclusive and primarily receptive to the interests of powerful corporate
and economic actors. As a result, they perceived that they had few points of access
and only limited opportunities to participate in the political process. Because
Greenpeace’s ideology led it to believe that political institutions were powerful
adversaries that could only be countered by a coordinated and equal force, it
believed that engaging the political system on its terms, by using institutional political tactics, would be ineffective. Instead, Greenpeace activists used direct action
tactics to try to prevent corporate and governmental agents from engaging in environmentally destructive and socially inequitable practices.
Environmental philosophy appears to play a critical role in understanding the
significance and implications of an issue whereas attributions, and resultant prognostic frames, appear to contribute more directly to repertoire choice. FOE and
Greenpeace both had reform environmentalist philosophies, with their ecosystem
perspective leading them to see interconnections between all species. However, just
as their ideologies, values, and experience varied, so too did the attributions they
made about the source of environmental problems. The solutions advanced by FOE
were based on its assessment that the individuals and groups pursuing most forms
of development were insensitive to the nature of interdependencies and the impacts
that seemingly localized action was having on overall environmental quality and
Carmin, Balser / ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
Table 1:
383
Cognitive Filters and Repertoires of Action in Friends of the Earth and
Greenpeace
Friends of the Earth
Experience
“Nice Nelly won’t make it”
Core values and beliefs
Environmental philosophy
Political ideology
Diagnostic attribution
Legalism
Reform environmentalism
Participatory democracy
Unchecked and unsustainable
development
Diverse campaigns using
institutional tactics
Repertoire of action
Greenpeace
“Bear witness and people will accept
responsibility”
Nonviolence, justice
Reform environmentalism
Neo-Marxism
Concentrated capital and multinational
corporations
Select campaigns using nonviolent
direct action
the preservation of habitats and aesthetic areas. The founding members of
Greenpeace formed the organization to stop nuclear bombs because of their potential consequences to both human and ecosystem health. In contrast to FOE, they
attributed the root of environmental problems to corporations, concentrated capital,
and hegemonic governments, developing a prognosis and course of action that they
believed would alter the very nature of political and economic structures. These
patterns suggest that environmental philosophy and diagnostic frames are loosely
coupled. In other words, multiple attributions within the same environmental philosophy are possible as different combinations of political ideology, core beliefs
and values, and experience come together to produce different interpretations about
the source of the problem and what repertoire of action will be most suitable.
Resource mobilization theory claims that factors such as funding are necessary
for movements and SMOs to pursue their agendas. The introduction of the concept
of ISA has made an important contribution to this theory by suggesting that in addition to structural and material factors, organization members make decisions with
respect to their ideologies and values (Zald, 2000). Accordingly, decisions about
whether to seek and accept funding from particular sources appear to be the result
of interpretive processes. For example, at FOE, the decision to rely on individual
membership dues, with additional funds generated through sales of their publications, was based on previous experience as well as the belief that large donors might
try to exert influence over the organization and its activities. In the early days,
Greenpeace solicited donations from nonprofit organizations and individuals who
supported their voyages in principle as well as generated funds through benefit concerts and direct sales of merchandise. This resource base appears to be tied to a
political ideology in which corporations are regarded as the source of environmental problems and a core belief that once individuals are aware of an issue, they will
take action, including providing financial support. Previous research suggests that
funders are attracted to organizations with particular environmental philosophies
and that groups engage in actions that reflect the interests and preferences of their
supporters (Dreiling & Wolf, 2001). However, as these examples suggest, organizations also seek out and accept funding from sources that make it possible for
them to enact a particular repertoire and that are aligned not only with their environmental philosophy but with their experience, core values and beliefs, and
political ideology.
FOE and Greenpeace had distinct interpretations of the sociopolitical arena,
leading each to conclude that different repertoires of action would be most effective. These variations, along with the unique interpretations and actions of other
EMOs, help define and establish the character of the environmental movement. The
384
ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2002
distinct way that cognitive filters shape interpretations contributes to organizations
within the movement adopting different repertoires of action. Although it has been
argued that decreasing differentiation between SMOs is resulting from the diffusion of tactics (e.g., Meyer & Staggenborg, 1996; Strang & Soule, 1998), the results
of this study suggest that cognitive filters and the related interpretation processes
may serve to deter diffusion that will lead to homogeneity. In addition, it has been
argued that professionalization and bureaucratization are fostering greater degrees
of institutionalization and homogeneity in the practices of established EMOs
(Gottlieb, 1993) and that these tendencies are among the factors contributing to the
movement’s losing ground (Dowie, 1996). Although many of the larger and more
visible organizations may be exhibiting signs of homogeneity, new groups, many of
which are tied to specific locales, continue to emerge. These groups, with their particular interpretive lenses, are focusing on different issues and relying on a wider
array of tactics, many of which are more expressive and innovative than their
national counterparts (Carmin, 1999; Gottlieb, 1993). The differentiation and distinctiveness among EMOs that derives from cognition and interpretation not only
contributes to the overall structure and character of the environmental movement; it
also may provide a hedge against both homogeneity and professionalization that in
turn may help invigorate and revitalize the environmental movement for many
years to come.
CONCLUSION
Studies of organizational repertoires generally have focused on how resources
and political opportunities shape actions. The narratives of FOE and Greenpeace
suggest that organizational repertoires are shaped by interpretive processes as well.
Both organizations engaged in actions directed at environmental protection. However, differences in their experience, values and beliefs, and political ideology
influenced their choice of action. Activists may engage in rational assessments,
weighing opportunities and constraints associated with various actions, but their
understanding of these factors is based on interpretations of the institutional environment, views about the efficacy of particular forms of action, and beliefs about
what is and is not acceptable.
This research provides a foundation for future investigations along two lines of
inquiry. First, although the narratives portray the dominant views, beliefs, and values held within FOE and Greenpeace, this does not mean that members had completely uniform interpretations nor that intraorganizational conflict was absent. The
social movement literature contains examples of internal conflict between subgroups over the position that an SMO should take on an issue, how it should use its
resources, and whether it should form alliances with other groups (e.g., Balser,
1997). Just as subcultures exist within organizations, competing frames and
notions of appropriate actions existed within Greenpeace and FOE. Because decisions about issues, interpretations, and actions are frequently contested, future
research should examine the relationship between cognitive filters, interpretation,
and conflict in SMOs. Second, interpretations were portrayed as unchanging. By
focusing on the founding period alone, it was possible to understand some of the
cognitive processes influencing action. However, as the institutional environment
changes, as new issues arise, and as individuals leave and are replaced, members
renegotiate their conception of what they and their organization represent
(Whittier, 1995). Although exploring how this negotiation occurs is beyond the
Carmin, Balser / ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
385
scope of this article, the mutable nature of organizational sensemaking in SMOs in
general and EMOs in particular is an important topic for future research.
This study provides evidence that environmental philosophy does not, by itself,
account for the repertoire of action used by an organization. Although others have
pointed to environmental philosophy as the primary factor that shapes EMO action,
the narratives provide evidence that its main function is helping groups diagnose
issues or situations in ways that are consistent with their particular philosophical
perspectives. The analysis stemming from environmental philosophy is augmented
by interpretations that are derived from experience, core values and beliefs, and
political ideology. The combined effect of these four filters shapes organizational
interpretations of the acceptability of different types of action, the significance of
the issue, the source of the problem, and the nature of the political environment.
These interpretations, in turn, guide an EMO’s selection of a repertoire of action.
NOTES
1. Research focusing on the selection of tactics suggests that organizations make rational
decisions to achieve instrumental and cultural goals (Bernstein, 1997; McAdam, McCarthy, &
Zald, 1988). These decisions are supported or constrained by structural conditions
(McAdam, 1983) and resources such as the availability of funds and expertise (Freeman,
1979).
2. Dalton (1994) and Brulle (2000) used the terms “political ideology” and “environmental discourse,” respectively, to refer to factors shaping action. However, both operationalized
these constructs as environmental philosophy.
3. Similar to the idea of environmental philosophy, Dreiling and Wolf (2001) used the
term “ecological identity” to express variations in organizational identification with social
and ecological contexts. They found that ecological identity, in combination with material
resources, guides environmental movement organization decisions on substantive issues.
Although they focused on strategic decision making, rather than repertoires of action or tactical choice, their study further suggested that environmental philosophy is an important construct to consider when examining cognitive and interpretive processes in environmental
movement organizations.
4. Early social movement theories considered the effects of ideology and interpretation
but viewed collective action as an irrational response to alienation, deprivation, social strain,
and lack of social organization. Beginning in the 1960s, these approaches were replaced with
rational theories of action that did not incorporate cultural and cognitive analyses. Contemporary streams of social movement research such as ideologically structured action are
reconsidering culture, cognition, and interpretation while acknowledging and adopting positions that are consistent with rational perspectives.
5. Friedland and Alford (1991) defined institutional logic as “a set of material practices
and symbolic constructions which constitutes (the institution’s) organizing principles and
which is available to organizations and individuals to elaborate” (p. 248). In discussing political institutions, Friedland and Alford suggested that the logic of democracy is “participation
and the extension of popular control over human activity” (p. 248).
6. In instances where their position or affiliation differed, the job title indicated for interview participants reflects the final or predominant position the person held within Friends of
the Earth and Greenpeace rather than his or her position or organizational affiliation at the
time the interview was conducted.
7. Brulle (2000) labeled Greenpeace’s philosophy as reform environmentalist, whereas
Dreiling and Wolf (2001) suggested that it fit more closely into the combined categories of
preservation and environmental justice. Dreiling and Wolf’s view of Greenpeace as having
high sensitivity to the relationship of humans to ecosystems is similar to the way that Brulle
described reform environmentalism. However, we link the organization’s commitment to
justice to political ideology rather than to environmental philosophy.
386
ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2002
REFERENCES
Balser, D. B. (1997). The impact of environmental factors on factionalism and schism in
social movement organizations. Social Forces, 76(1), 199-228.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611-639.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York:
Doubleday.
Bernstein, M. (1997). Celebration and suppression: The strategic uses of identity by the lesbian and gay movement. American Journal of Sociology, 103(3), 531-565.
Brower, D. (1970). Foreword. In G. DeBell (Ed.), Voter’s guide to environmental politics.
New York: Ballantine.
Brower, D. (1981). Progress as if survival mattered: A handbook for a conserver society. San
Francisco: Friends of the Earth.
Brower, D. (1991). Work in progress. Salt Lake City, UT: Peregrine Smith Books.
Brown, M., & May, J. (1991). The Greenpeace story. New York: Dorling Kingsley.
Brulle, R. J. (2000). Agency, democracy, and nature: The U.S. environmental movement from
a critical theory perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Burke, T. (1979). The next ten years. Not Man Apart, 9(10), 16.
Carmin, J. (1993). Authentic presence: Identity, structure, and the enactment of beliefs in
environmental movement organizations. Unpublished master’s thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Carmin, J. (1999). Voluntary associations, professional organizations, and the American
environmental movement. Environmental Politics, 8(1), 101-121.
Dalton, R. J. (1994). The green rainbow: Environmental groups in Western Europe. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Des Jardins, J. R. (1997). Environmental ethics: An introduction to environmental philosophy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Devall, W. B. (1970). The governing of a voluntary organization: Oligarchy and democracy
in the Sierra Club. Unpublished dissertation, University of Oregon.
Dowie, M. (1996). Losing ground: American environmentalism at the close of the twentieth
century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dreiling, M., & Wolf, B. (2001). Environmental movement organizations and political strategy: Tactical conflicts over NAFTA. Organization & Environment, 14(1), 34-54.
Eisinger, P. K. (1973). The conditions of protest behavior in American cities. American Political Science Review, 67, 11-28.
Freeman, J. (1979). Resource mobilization and strategy: A model for analyzing social movement organization actions. In M. N. Zald & J. D. McCarthy (Eds.), The dynamics of
social movements: Resource mobilization, social control, and tactics (pp. 167-189).
Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and
institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new
institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232-263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gamson, J. (1996). The organizational shaping of collective identity: The case of lesbian and
gay film festivals in New York. Sociological Forum, 11(2), 231-261.
Garner, R. A. (1996). Contemporary movements and ideologies. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Glaser, B. M., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Gottlieb, R. (1993). Forcing the spring: The transformation of the American environmental
movement. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Haveman, H. A., & Rao, H. (1997). Structuring a theory of moral sentiments: Institutional
and organizational coevolution in the early thrift industry. American Journal of Sociology, 102(6), 1606-1651.
Held, D. (1996). Models of democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Carmin, Balser / ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
387
Jasper, J. M. (1997). The art of moral protest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jenkins, J. C., & Perrow, C. (1977). Insurgency of the powerless: Farm workers movements
(1946-1972). American Sociological Review, 42, 249-268.
Klandermans, B. (1991). The peace movement and social movement theory. International
Social Movement Research, 3, 1-39.
Klandermans, B. (1992). The social construction of protest and multiorganizational fields. In
A. D. Morris & C. M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 77-103).
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of Black insurgency, 1930-1970.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McAdam, D. (1983). Tactical innovation and the pace of insurgency. American Sociological
Review, 48, 735-754.
McAdam, D. (1996). The framing function of movement tactics: Strategic dramaturgy in the
American civil rights movement. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.),
Comparative perspectives on social movements (pp. 338-355). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1988). Social movements. In N. J. Smelser
(Ed.), Handbook of sociology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McCarthy, J. D., Britt, D. W., & Wolfson, M. (1991). The institutional channeling of social
movements in the modern state. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change,
13, 45-76.
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212-1241.
McCracken, G. D. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Meyer, D. S. (1993a). Institutionalizing dissent: The United States structure of political opportunity and the end of the nuclear freeze movement. Sociological Forum, 8(2), 157-179.
Meyer, D. S. (1993b). Peace protest and policy: Explaining the rise and decline of peace protest in postwar America. Policy Studies Journal, 21, 35-51.
Meyer, D. S., & Staggenborg, S. (1996). Movements, countermovements, and the structure
of political opportunity. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1628-1660.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Not Man Apart. (1974). 3(12), 8.
Oakes, J. (1980). Introduction. In David R. Brower: Environmental activist, publicist, and
prophet. Berkeley: Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of
California.
Oliver, P. E., & Johnston, H. (2000). What a good idea! Ideologies and frames in social movement research. Mobilization, 4(1), 37-54.
Pearce, F. (1991). Green warriors: The people and the politics behind the environmental revolution. London: Bodley Head.
Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1977). Poor people’s movements: How they succeed and how
they fail. New York: Vintage.
Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative
strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rochon, T. R. (1988). Mobilizing for peace: The anti-nuclear movements in Western Europe.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197-217.
Staggenborg, S. (1988). The consequences of professionalization and formalization in the
pro-choice movement. American Sociological Review, 53, 585-606.
388
ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2002
Stowe, I. (1971). Letter from Irving Stowe to Thorsteinsson, Mitchell, & Little, 4 February.
MSS number 925, 1(7). Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Greenpeace.
Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From
hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 265-290.
Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of
power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958-1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843.
Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Whittier, N. (1995). Turning it over: Personnel change in the Columbus, Ohio, women’s
movement, 1969-1984. In M. M. Ferree & P. Y. Martin (Eds.), Feminist organizations
(pp. 180-198). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Wilson, J. (1973). Introduction to social movements. New York: Basic Books.
Zald, M. N. (1996). Culture, ideology, and strategic framing. In D. McAdam, J. D.
McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements (pp. 275290). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zald, M. N. (2000). Ideologically structured action: An enlarged agenda for social movement research. Mobilization: An International Journal, 5(1), 1-16.