The discourses of green modernization and eco-civilizational progress in contemporary China: convergence, tension and mutual learning

Over the past decade under CPC leadership, China’s environmental protection has made notable progress—PM2.5 concentrations in major cities fell 57% to 29 μg/m³ by 2022, heavily polluted days were reduced by 93%, good-quality surface waters reached 87.9%, forest coverage rose to 24.02%, the first five national parks were established, and over 50 integrated ecosystem restoration projects were launched. Against this backdrop, the 20th CPC National Congress (2022) systematically articulated "Chinese modernization with harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature" as a key element of Chinese modernization theory. This raises the question of how this discourse relates to the established discourse of "eco-civilizational progress". The paper’s purpose is to review the development of these two discursive theories, analyze their convergence, explore inherent differences and tensions, and consider prospects for mutual learning. Recognizing these discourses as primarily official/political in origin and use, the article clarifies their political and policy implications and examines opportunities and challenges their convergence brings for China’s broader green transformation from an environmental social sciences perspective.

The paper situates "eco-civilizational progress" as a predominantly Chinese phenomenon that evolved from academic usage in the 1980s to core CPC ideology by 2012. It identifies three main intellectual sources for New Era Thought on Eco-civilization: (1) Marxist ecological theory (beyond classic environmental philosophy to ecological political economy and visions of socialist futures), referencing works by Burkett, Foster, O’Connor, European/US eco-Marxists, and Chinese Marxist ecologists; (2) environmental humanities and social sciences since the 1960s, which provide theoretical materials and disciplinary dialogue for green discourse formation; and (3) traditional Chinese ecological culture emphasizing harmony between humanity and nature, creatively transformed in contemporary theory. For "green modernization" (understood narrowly as Chinese modernization with harmonious coexistence), the paper traces antecedents in CPC modernization discourse: Deng Xiaoping’s “Chinese-style modernization” (1979) and subsequent leaders’ integrations of ecological harmony into development strategies—Jiang Zemin on ecologically sound development and new-type industrialization (2001–2002), and Hu Jintao on harmony with nature and sustainable development (2003–2012). It contrasts this with Western/EU "ecological modernization" literatures (Mol, Murphy, Weale), noting the distinct Chinese connotation. The article also reviews CPC documents central to both discourses: the 18th/19th/20th CPC National Congress reports; the May 18, 2018 National Conference on Ecological Environmental Protection speech ("six/eight/ten key principles"); Xi’s works (The Governance of China vols. 3–4; On Upholding Harmonious Coexistence Between Humanity and Nature; Selected Works vols. 1–2); and major regional ecological governance symposia (Yangtze River Economic Belt; Yellow River Basin). It cites Chinese scholarship constructing the academic discourse system and clarifying philosophical bases, concepts, propositions, and methodological implications.

This is a normative and philosophical inquiry employing discursive and conceptual analysis. Methods include: (1) historical-chronological tracing of the evolution of the two discourses within CPC ideology and policy; (2) close reading and synthesis of core CPC documents and Xi Jinping’s speeches/writings to extract principles, propositions, and strategic frameworks; (3) theoretical comparison contrasting eco-civilizational progress and green modernization in terms of core ideas, visions, strategic thinking, focal objects, and critical orientation; and (4) positioning within broader scholarly literatures (Marxist ecology, environmental humanities/social sciences, ecological modernization, and traditional Chinese ecological thought). The study does not include empirical fieldwork or quantitative analysis.

- The discourses of eco-civilizational progress and Chinese green modernization (modernization with harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature) have historically converged, especially as articulated in the 20th CPC National Congress report. New Era Thought on Eco-civilization and the ecological view of Chinese modernization are their most typical system forms. - Shared core ideas: Both center on "harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature"; they share future visions of a sustainable and beautiful China/world and prioritize integrated, systemic ecological governance. - Strategic alignment: Both place "facilitating harmonious coexistence" at the level of key strategy/essential requirement; eco-civilizational progress is embedded in the "five-in-one" overall layout, and Chinese modernization mandates providing high-quality ecological goods and modernizing ecological governance capacity. - Differences/tensions: Eco-civilizational progress is more critical, radical, and transformative—an ecological negation of dominant global modernization models and an exploration of a new civilizational form. Green modernization is more pragmatic and path-oriented within an ongoing modernization paradigm, which can risk being constrained by the hegemonic legacies of “modernization” despite a Chinese qualifier. - Mutual learning: Placing both discourses under a broader green discourse framework enables reciprocal enrichment—using the modernization discourse to advance institutional and governance modernization, while allowing eco-civilizational progress to guide long-term transcendence and sustainability. Over time, the emphasis in green modernization may shift increasingly toward harmony with nature and distinctive Chinese features, while eco-civilizational progress accrues richer creative implications. - Contextual performance indicators illustrating the governance backdrop include: by 2022, PM2.5 in major cities declined 57% to 29 μg/m³; heavily polluted days fell by 93%; 87.9% of surface waters reached good quality; forest coverage rose to 24.02%; five national parks were established; and 50+ integrated ecosystem protection/restoration projects were implemented.

The findings address the central question of how two major green discourses in China relate by demonstrating their historic convergence, common ontological and strategic cores, and complementary roles. Eco-civilizational progress offers a transformative civilizational horizon and critical stance toward prevailing modernization models, while green modernization provides a pragmatic framework to integrate ecological priorities into the modernization process, including governance system modernization and delivery of ecological goods. The significance lies in proposing a unified theoretical environment where both discourses mutually inform policy design and scholarly inquiry: modernization discourse operationalizes near- to mid-term institutional and strategic tasks (e.g., green transformation of development modes, pollution control, ecosystem stability/diversity, carbon peaking and neutrality), while eco-civilizational progress steers value orientation, long-term sustainability, and global engagement (community with a shared future for mankind). This alignment enhances China’s capacity to build a modern socialist country that is prosperous, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful, and contributes to global theoretical innovations in modernization and sustainability.

The paper argues that eco-civilizational progress and green modernization have achieved a historic convergence, with the ecological view of Chinese modernization functioning as a system form and discursive contextualization of New Era Thought on Eco-civilization. While both share core ideas, visions, and strategies, eco-civilizational progress provides a more radical, long-term transformative orientation, and green modernization offers a realistic, instrumental pathway for institutionalization and governance modernization. It envisions a dynamic of mutual learning in which green modernization serves as a phased or transitional form advancing eco-civilizational progress, which in turn guides systemic transcendence beyond conventional modernization paradigms, including Western ecological modernization. Future research should: deepen conceptual translation between policy rhetoric and academic theory; empirically examine how these discourses inform policy implementation and public action; analyze cross-domain integration (economy, law, culture) of eco-civilizational governance; and explore international dialogues to internalize global lessons and contribute Chinese perspectives to global modernization theory and sustainable transformation.

The study is a normative/philosophical analysis rather than an empirical assessment. It relies on document analysis and theoretical synthesis without testing implementation outcomes. The discourses’ claims may not equate to on-the-ground realities, and there is no guarantee of full institutionalization or realization. Whether these narratives translate into broad societal action (including business, management, and labor) remains an open empirical question for future research.