Ecological Modernisation Theory has been faced with various challenges from different theoretical perspectives throughout the years. This contribution reviews the various debates ecological modernisation ideas have been engaged in. The article starts with a historical perspective on some of the earlier debates that paralleled Ecological Modernisation from its birth in the early 1980s to its maturation. These initial debates with earlier neo‐Marxists and deindustrialisation/counterproductivity theorists were formative for Ecological Modernisation Theory, but are no longer all of similar relevance today. Subsequently we concentrate on more contemporary discussions, which only to some extent reflect similar topics. We will respectively enter into discussions with constructivists and postmodernists on the material foundation of social theory, review and refine the controversies with eco‐centrists on radical versus reformist environmental reforms and contribute to neo‐Marxist understanding of social inequalities in environmental problems and reform.

To minimize or at least substantially reduce damage to the natural resource sustenance‐base we urgently need institutional reform within modern society. Environmental sociologists have different views as to which institutional traits can be held primarily responsible for the environmental crisis. Examples include its capitalistic or industrial character as well as the complex, highly administrated technological system of modern society. We discuss these matters in the context of the theory of “ecological modernization”; as developed by the German sociologist Joseph Huber, among others. To analyze the institutional reforms required for bringing human interaction with the sustenance‐base under rational ecological control, however, the theory needs to be substantially modified and complemented in several respects. However, restructuring the processes of production and consumption is only half the story. The change to ecologically sound patterns of production and consumption is limited by the dimension of the environmental crisis that has to do with nature as sustenance‐base and does not provide a solution to problems related to what we call the second dimension of the environmental crisis: the changing role of nature as “intuited nature”; and the way people “deal with”; these aspects of the environmental crisis within everyday life. In this respect we propose that theories of modern society as a risk‐society should be given greater attention within environmental sociology.

During the past four decades the governance of environmental problems – the definition of issues and their political and practical resolution – has evolved to include a wider range of stakeholders in more extensive open discussions. In the introduction to this issue of Environmental Values on ‘Environment, Policy and Participation’, we outline some features of these recent developments in participatory environmental governance, indicate some key questions that arise, and give an overview of the collection of papers in this special issue.

Pesticide use is a common practice to control pests and diseases in vegetable cultivation, but often at the expense of the environment and human health. This article studies pesticide-buying and use practices among smallholder vegetable farmers in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia, using a practice perspective. Through in-depth interviews and observations, data were collected from a sample of farmers, suppliers and key governmental actors. The results reveal that farmers apply pesticides in violation of the recommendations: they use unsafe storage facilities, ignore risks and safety instructions, do not use protective devices when applying pesticides, and dispose containers unsafely. By applying a social practice approach, we show that these pesticide-handling practices are steered by the combination of the system of provision, the farmers’ lifestyle and the everyday context in which pesticides are being bought and used. Bringing in new actors such as environmental authorities, suppliers, NGOs and private actors, as well as social and technological innovations, may contribute to changes in the actual performance of these pesticides buying and using practices. This article argues that a practice approach represents a promising perspective to analyse pesticide handling and use and to systematically identify ways to change these.