A labour–nature alliance for a social-ecological transformation

Europe’s current multiple social, ecological and geopolitical crises reveal an urgent need for change. Underlying these crises is a capital accumulation regime focused on generating profits from increased exploitation of labour and extraction from nature, thus threatening our biosphere and undermining our society (Spash, 2021a). Unless urgent action is taken, climate breakdown will bring about a future of untold human suffering, as the recent IPCC (2022a) report underlined. In any case, ecological limits are increasingly constraining human activities, with dramatic consequences of the kind illustrated by recent extreme weather events. In order to maintain the pursuit of economic growth under these conditions, extraction and exploitation will have to become more extreme. But this will only exacerbate the social crisis epitomised by the cost-of-living crisis. In order to avoid this there is a need, as the IPCC (2022b: TS/99) argues, to shift from a ‘GDP growth-oriented economy’ to a ‘low-carbon energy-services, well-being, and equity-oriented economy’. A ‘labour–nature alliance’ will be indispensable in enabling such a social-ecological transformation. This article will highlight potentials for a labour–nature alliance in the current circumstances and provide a brief list of recommendations for action.

Trade unionists and ecologists have not always seen eye to eye. There have been various historical battles in which they were on opposing sides of the so-called ‘jobs/environment dilemma’ (Räthzel and Uzzell, 2011), for example, in Austria, with the conflicts over Zwentendorf nuclear power station or the hydropower plant in what would become Donau-Auen National Park (Brand and Niedermoser, 2017: 34, 36–39, 134–135; Soder et al., 2018: 529–530).

Both organised labour and ecological movements are relatively weak on their own in comparison with organised capital, however. Under current social circumstances it is likely that both will fail in satisfactorily resolving the crises they aim to address. To illustrate this dynamic, I put forward a schematic of possible alliances between three forces: labour, capital and nature (Figure 1). This schematic was developed in my thesis (Nitsche-Whitfield, 2022) and informed by the work of Brand and Wissen (2018) and Laurent and Pochet (2015: 15–27). With the aim of reducing exploitation, at least in the Global North, trade unions are currently in a dominant alliance with capital. This produces a ‘brown’, extractive form of capitalism. On the other hand, the dominant alliance of the environmentalist movement (nature) is focused on working with green capital. This produces a green capitalism that aims to reduce the impacts of extractivist practices. Hence, current alliances are organised around the focal point of capital, thereby bestowing even more power on capital. However, both coalitions with capital are leading to catastrophic consequences for labour and nature, albeit to different degrees, while a bottom-up alliance between labour and nature has the power to be truly transformative (Kalt, 2022: 4–5). Hence, this triangle is not to be read as a classic economic trilemma, as these are not equal options. The triangle is rather an explanatory tool highlighting the abstract choices that capital, labour and nature face. In the following I will characterise the positions of these three actors.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Possible alliances and scenarios in the capital–labour–nature relationship.

Currently, trade unions are stuck in an uphill battle against organised capital that has reaped the fruits of decades of neoliberal globalisation and re-regulation in favour of the interests of financial capital, especially shareholders (Lazonick and O’Sullivan, 2000). The financialisation–offshoring nexus (Auvray and Rabinovich, 2019) has led to worsening relations between organised labour and organised capital, with labour constantly fearful of offshoring, outsourcing and subcontracting. Hence, organised labour has been forced into a defensive position (Brand and Niedermoser, 2017: 27, 139; Jakopovich, 2009: 76), trying to protect its members’ jobs before focusing on wage increases and improved working conditions, let alone wider political aims. This was a logical move in a hostile context, as it also bolstered existing corporatist institutions within big corporations, thus strengthening trade unions’ raison d’être. This has left trade unions in a weakened position, however, such as when they are forced to make concessions to protect unionised labour at the expense of new and short-term employees. More fundamentally, this has allowed capital to bind trade unions into an alliance against nature, which further undermines the unions’ long-term relevance. Hence, trade unions should try to return to an offensive position to counter an economic system that is not delivering on its promises.

At the same time, environmentalists are also struggling against an economic system that has moved completely beyond the boundaries of the biosphere’s reproductive capacity, leading us not only to catastrophic climate breakdown but also to an unprecedented extinction of the living world. If current trends continue, the IPCC (2022a: SPM/35) argues that we ‘will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all’. Fossil capitalists and extractivist rentiers are trying to hide this and are attempting to build a capital–nature alliance by greenwashing their practices (Bragg et al., 2021). While green capital can play a positive role in driving the shift to greener technology, its continued reliance on growth leads to the ‘downside of pressure on wages, the weakening of work and social standards and thus also the weakening of trade unions’ (Müller et al., 2018: 26; author’s translation). In order to bring about changes that are adequate to the scale of our ecological crises, we must move away from an economic system dependent on cost-shifting onto labour and nature (Spash, 2021b) and endless growth in resource extraction and pollution (Hickel, 2021). This entails a radical reduction of the power of organised capital. Parts of the climate and ecology movements have already started campaigning on this issue, organising around the slogans #peoplenotprofit and #systemchangenotclimatechange.

On the other hand, the power of capital has been strengthening immensely over recent decades. As the watering down of the EU Green Deal legislation (Corporate Europe Observatory, 2020) showed, capital has acquired free rein to lobby governments and shift policy in its favour as soon as high-profile public discussions move on. Moreover, capital has been very effective in pushing a wedge between social and ecological movements, successfully playing them off against one another (Jakopovich, 2009). When debating ecological measures aiming to ensure the long-term survival of human civilisation, neoliberal think tanks and mouthpieces of capital highlight the potential or alleged social costs related to these policies. For instance, the German Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft (Initiative New Social-Market Economy) consistently highlights how the poorest will be affected by the ecological transition, while simultaneously promoting austerity and ‘free markets’ at every opportunity. Thus, while it is true that many policies addressing ecological breakdown have had some regressive elements to them, this is exactly because of the neoliberal approach to our ecological crises, which conceptualises them as a problem of individual consumption. Hence, pursuing an alliance with capital, which continues to spread those neoliberal principles that render ecological policies regressive, is unlikely to be fruitful for social aims.

Trade unionists and ecological activists should thus recognise capital’s attempt to play them off against each other and work towards a class-conscious ecological activism that can be combined with an ecology-conscious class struggle. While it will be difficult to directly counter the extractive and exploitative capital accumulation regime that aims to produce ever-increasing profits from nature and labour, there are a number of straightforward steps that can be taken.

First, both ecological activists and trade unionists should be conscious of the social and ecological impacts of their demands and try to hear each other out on their respective campaigns. Fortunately, both informal and formal exchange between representatives of labour and advocates of nature have become more frequent (Nitsche-Whitfield, 2022; Staude, 2022). This has been supported by organisations such as the European Trade Union Institute, which is connecting academics working on social-ecological questions with trade unionists.

Second, wherever there is the possibility to lend solidarity without conflicting with one’s own goals, this should be done. Promisingly, both sides have supported each other’s strikes in recent years, with trade unions backing climate strikes (IGM, 2019) and Fridays for Future supporting strikers, such as the Ver.di public transport workers in Germany (Krüger, 2020).

Third, joint campaigns around specific policy proposals have the potential to bring about concrete action to address our multiple crises. One key project that trade unionists and ecologists could prioritise is the issue of working time reduction, which can bring about a ‘triple dividend’ of reduced unemployment, improved living standards and reduced ecological impacts (Schor, 2010, as cited in Hickel, 2021 and in Räthzel and Uzzell, 2011: 1215). Others might include the promotion of public transport, which creates meaningful jobs, improves mobility and reduces emissions (Jakopovich, 2009: 81–82). As Keil and Kreinin (2022: 15–17) argue, trade unions are moving towards stronger engagement on housing, inequality and health, thus opening up a new common sense that goes beyond the current growth coalition.

Fourth, wherever there is conflict between ecological and social goals, the resources poured into it should be kept to a minimum. This means that trade unions should consider proactively engaging with the dismantling of ecologically questionable sectors of the economy. This could counter the development of a strong capital–environmentalist coalition aiming to end outdated and unprofitable business models without consideration for the impact on workers. Furthermore, this will allow for strategic, strong and smooth just transition plans for the workers and communities involved and provide trade unions with stability (Galgóczi, 2019).

Fifth, trade unions could benefit from advocating a truly just social-ecological transformation. This will require consideration of how retraining and a shifting world of work could work for trade unions. By moving away from simply reacting to the great challenges of our times and proposing radical alternatives, trade unions could return to an offensive position (Thomas and Doerflinger, 2020: 394). Thus, it is encouraging that trade unions are developing more explicit ecological and climate strategies, as visible in IndustriAll Europe’s (2022) Just Transition Manifesto. To further this aim, trade unions can highlight their long history of pushing for environmental protection and workers’ health (Jakopovich, 2009: 77–78; Müller et al., 2018: 18–22) and underline how vital the knowledge of their members is for a successful transformation.

Sixth, environmentalists should make an effort to explain the current situation as clearly as possible. Showing the origins of our ecological crises in an economic system incapable of delivering on its promises and dependent on economic growth will help align trade union interests with environmental values (Jakopovich, 2009). While this will include highlighting the difficulties inherent in transition, it should equally stress the costs of the status quo – as well as pointing to the meaningful work that needs to be done for the social-ecological transformation and the policies that can break the job–growth treadmill (Laurent, 2021; Mayrhofer and Wiese, 2020).

It is important for all social actors to recognise that inevitable changes are coming as a result of ecological breakdown. The later their response, the more chaotic and drastic it will be. Swift, decisive action is clearly the preferable option, as it will allow us to channel the transformation in a social-ecological direction. Considering the effects of fossil fuel-based economies on geopolitics, as exemplified by the role of Russian oil and gas exports in enabling Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the shift away from extractive and exploitative modes of production cannot come fast enough. Ecological movements should thus advocate for a social-ecological transformation in which trade unions play a key role – and in turn, trade unions should continue to strengthen their strategies supporting climate change mitigation.