In ecological modernization, the environmental movement is seen as having more power in being
able to institutionalize ecological objectives through motivation of public pressures and state regulation.
Ecological modernization sees these collaborations through the lens of new institutional
theory—organizational objectives are aligning as corporations adopt ecological logics. In these theories,
power is not inherently “zero-sum” but rather understood as a capacity to produce the intended
outcome (Piven & Cloward, 2005). In this case, the intended outcome is adoption of ecological and
economic logics. Sonnenfeld (2002) poses a series of questions about social movements and the
political processes of ecological modernization including whether social movements have (a) moved
from radical opposition to capitalism, industrialization, and bureaucratization to greater involvement
in environmental reform efforts; (b) become more single-issue oriented, rather than remaining part
of broader social movements; (c) shifted from being “outside influences” to becoming “inside” players
in environmental transformation; (d) played an increasingly direct role in planning and designing
new production technologies; and (e) shifted from working with the state to working more closely
with market actors. While these questions are to assess the extent of the ecological modernization
process, these are the same questions that are often asked by those who are assessing the cooptation
of the environmental movement.