A core part of historians’ work is to give meaning to historical periods. In 2019, the “green wave” seemed to signal a growing awareness of climate issues, whereas today political commitments appear to be stagnating. Does this turnaround surprise you?
SP: The history of the environment challenges the idea that we polluted unknowingly and that only from the 1970s onwards did we become aware of pollution and begin to address it through regulatory thresholds or new green technologies. Together with my colleague, historian Tiphaine Robert, we show that the toxicity of lead was known as early as the 1920s. Switzerland first banned leaded gasoline, then reversed its decision in 1947 under the influence of industry and international standards. Once a toxic substance is adopted on a large scale, it becomes extremely difficult to reverse course.
Business and the Environment: A Retrospective of Professor Sabine Pitteloud’s Work
Switzerland, however, enjoys a reputation as a model student when it comes to the environment. Should this be reconsidered?
SP: Yes. Even though Switzerland has at times been innovative, it has not been spared industrial and agricultural pollution. Research published in the issue Nouvelles normes, surtout pas de panique! of the historical journal Itinera shows that federalism, political deadlocks and strategies of concealment often limited the impact of regulations. We therefore invite a reassessment of the image of a country that is always regarded as exemplary.
Your new project takes a comparative perspective across countries. What does this add to understanding the role of businesses?
SP: The comparison highlights institutional specificities. Swiss direct democracy enabled the environmental movements of the 1970s to launch initiatives that publicly politicised these issues and, for a time, reduced the influence of business actors. However, such referendums can create the impression that the problem has been solved, even though environmental harms persist. At the international level, the 1970s saw the United States take the lead in environmental regulation. Companies operating across multiple markets feared regulatory fragmentation. Together with my colleagues at the University of Lausanne, Sandra Bott and Janick Schaufelbuehl, we show that business actors were never passive: they funded studies, engaged in lobbying and communication, and cultivated institutional partnerships — even in the Nordic countries.
Today, when resistance to environmental policies is discussed, attention tends to focus on major oil companies. Yet, particularly in the United States, small and medium-sized enterprises also played an important role in the conservative movement. They helped to spread an attitude opposed to advances in environmental protection.
In recent years, young people have mobilised strongly for the climate. How should these actions be interpreted from a historical perspective?
SP: History helps us distinguish a temporary victory from a structural change. When a company responds to activism with voluntary corporate social responsibility measures, this may create an impression of success, but the impact remains uncertain without appropriate mechanisms of oversight. In the 1970s, companies were already taking activism very seriously — not out of concern for their reputation, but because they feared rapid and binding political decisions.
And today, how is power distributed between activists and companies?
SP: Together with my colleague, the historian Peter van Dam, we observe a competition over who speaks on behalf of the common good. Companies enjoy strong political legitimacy thanks to the jobs they provide and the tax revenues they generate, and they have learned to co-opt some of the criticism through partnerships with NGOs or through their own environmental programmes. This is why, even in referendums, it is by no means certain that citizens will vote “against the economy”, even though opponents often emphasise arguments of social and environmental justice. There was already a tendency in the past to equate the interests of the economy with the national interest.
