Companies are among the biggest polluters worldwide. Since 2016, just 57 corporate and state producing entities have been responsible for 80 percent of global CO₂ emissions. At the same time, we are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction, in which biodiversity is disappearing at an alarming rate. This context makes it clear that traditional legal methods, in particular organizational models, are insufficient to protect ecological values. Organizational models can shape the internal decision-making process and the priorities that have to be considered within that process. Current organizational models often give space to financial profit of shareholders over ecological wellbeing. There is a need for alternative models that give nature a place within the decision-making process of organizations. The zoöp could be such an alternative model.
Life (Greek: zoë) and cooperation together form the concept of zoöp. It is a form of organization in which life in all its forms, human and non-human, is given a place in the decision-making process. A zoöp is not a new legal form, but a model that adds on existing structures. It is therefore suitable for all types of organizations, whether for-profit, non-profit or public.[i] The model was developed in 2018 as an initiative of Het Nieuwe Instituut in , the Netherlands, in collaboration with ecologists, philosophers and artists and with legal development by lawyers from the firm . The lawyers used existing Dutch private law to design a structure that enables ecological representation without changing the law.
The workings
The core of the model is that the organization signs a zoöp contract with the Zoönomisch Instituut (Zoönomic Institute). In doing so, it commits to working with the Zoönomische Stichting (Zoönomic Foundation), which adds a representative to the organization, namely the Speaker for the Living. This speaker represents the interests of ecosystems, animals and plants in the choices made by an organization. The speaker often has extensive knowledge and expertise in the field of ecology and can consult with a network of other speakers consisting of philosophers, creative professionals, professors and ecologists. In this way the voice of non-human life is not heard incidentally, but is structurally taken into account.
The zoöp is in line with existing private law.[ii] An organization can retain its existing structure without a new legal form or legislative change. This makes the model relatively easy to apply. Each year, a zoöp is evaluated against the UN sustainability goals, complemented by a posthumanist emphasis on circular economic models rather than linear growth. The zoöp must also demonstrate the steps it is taking to improve the ecological quality. If an organization does not meet these requirements, it loses its certificate. This mechanism is the only form of soft enforcement within the model. This makes it a private-law approach to the broader movement around the rights of nature. Yet, there is a focus on the future and regeneration rather than on liability after the fact, the latter being a more classical private-law approach.
Ecocentrism
However, much remains unclear about the ten zoöps (such as the Amstelpark in Amsterdam) and the fourteen proto-zoöps, organizations that are already practicing parts of the model in the run-up to full certification (such as University College Utrecht). The literature states that the zoöp is an operationalization of ecocentric perspectives, such as those of Bruno Latour (Actor-Network Theory), Rosi Braidotti (Zoë) and James Lovelock (Gaia hypothesis).[iii] Actor-Network Theory describes the mutual interaction between human and non-human elements, all of which can have potential for action within a network (such as a university). The Gaia hypothesis conceives of the earth as a single integrated system in which life and the environment are interconnected. Braidotti takes a posthumanist and post-anthropocentric approach, in which not only bios (Greek: human-organized life) counts, but also zoë (life in a broad sense).[iv] She advocates new systems and forms of coexistence in which this broader understanding of life is central.
And these abovementioned ecocentric perspectives are indeed reflected in the zoöp, because the premise of the zoöp-model is to create a symbiosis between all the relationships in the ecosystem of which the organization is a part of and the participants involved in it. Think, for example, of a boat hotel and the waters in which it is located, with the fish, aquatic plants and people swimming there, all forming a single integrated system. In this context, nature is structurally represented, so that humans are no longer central but relate in harmony with the living environment, the system.
Yet, the zoöp does raise private law questions regarding the contract, contractual-liability and more specifically directors’ liability. What obligations do directors have towards non-human life based on the zoöp contract? And are there any other legal remedies besides revoking the certificate such as, claiming damages or specific performance?
Alternative
Recognizing nature as a legal entity requires political will and legislative changes, while the zoöp creates space within existing law to give non-human life a voice.[v] This creates more independence from the current state of politics in the Netherlands, as stated by Laura Burgers and Kinanya Pijl. The broad applicability of the zoöp within a variety of organizations means that this ecocentric approach can also influence other areas, such as urban planning.
Furthermore, for some time now, it has been possible to operate an organization in such a way that social and ecological values are taken into account. A well-known example is the so-called B-Corp model, in which companies demonstrate, through a certification, that they pursue social and ecological values in addition to profit. However, literature shows that this model is susceptible to greenwashing.[vi] B-Corp works with a single set of standards that applies to every organization. Once those standards have been met, a company can call itself a B-Corp without being required to develop further. This contrasts with the zoöp, which requires growth and further development each year.
In light of the above, the zoöp is an interesting new instrumentalization of Dutch private law.
(Photo: MabelAmber)
[i] P. Paiement, ‘Rights of Nature, Globalization and Legal Pluralism: The Netherlands Country Report’, Globalization and Legal Pluralism: The Netherlands Country Report 2022, p. 3.
[ii] L. Burgers, ‘Duurzaamheid en privaatrecht’, in: M. Wewerinke‑Singh e.a., Recht en Duurzaamheid, manuscript 2025, p. 12.
[iii] C. Pedroso-Roussado , e.a., ‘Zoöp Futures: Towards an organisational framework for ecological cooperation between humans and more-than-humans’. Futures: The journal of policy, planning and futures studies 2025 vol. 169, p. 2.
[iv] R. Braidotti, The Posthuman, Engeland: Polity Press 2013, p. 193.
[v] L. Burgers & K. Pijl, ‘Collective Ownership and Representation in a Sustainable City: Investigating the Potential of the Community Land Trust and the Zoöp Model’, Erasmus law review 2022, vol. 3.
[vi] G. Attanasio, C. Battistella & E. Chizzolini, ‘B-Corp Certification: Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda’, Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag, vol. 32, p. 3766.
