Information systems and ecological sustainability

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1328-7265.htm

THEME ARTICLES

JSIT 10,3

186

Information systems and ecological sustainability Adela J.W. Chen, Marie-Claude Boudreau and Richard T. Watson Department of Management Information Systems, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA Abstract Purpose – There is a growing awareness by researchers and practitioners of organizations’ ecological responsibilities. Past research in management suggests that it is important to develop ecological sustainability, a long-missing piece of the sustainability puzzle, together with economic sustainability and social sustainability. However, little research has been conducted to explore how information systems (IS), as one of the defining technologies in human society, can help organizations develop ecological sustainability. The purpose of this paper is to suggest a conceptual model and propositions with regard to the roles of IS in the pursuit of ecological sustainability. Design/methodology/approach – The paper focuses on how organizations are motivated to act in the same legitimate way (i.e. eco-friendly way) and proposes institutional theory as a lens to better understand how IS can be leveraged to achieve the three milestones of ecological sustainability, i.e. eco-efficiency, eco-equity and eco-effectiveness. Findings – The model advocates that under different institutional pressures, IS can be leveraged to achieve eco-efficiency, eco-equity and eco-effectiveness through automating, informating (up and down) and transforming organizations, respectively. Research limitations/implications – The paper calls for the incorporation of the dimension of natural environment into our framework for future investigation of the IS roles in organizations. Practical implications – The paper highlights the importance for practitioners to understand the environmental impact of the IS that they design or use, and the roles that IS can play in facilitating the large-scale learning about ecological sustainability. Originality/value – The implications of this research for both practice and academia are discussed, with a brief outlook towards future research. Keywords Ecology, Economic sustainability, Information systems, Corporate governance Paper type Conceptual paper

Journal of Systems and Information Technology Vol. 10 No. 3, 2008 pp. 186-201 # Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1328-7265 DOI 10.1108/13287260810916907

Introduction Ecological sustainability has recently risen to prominence as a solution to serious environmental and social problems. Little more than a moral concern in the past, environmentally friendly products or services were perceived as a source of unnecessary additional costs instead of a source of competitive advantage. With the world population growing and the natural environment deteriorating in an unrecoverable manner, relentless exploitation of nature will make our economic development unsustainable and leave our children’s powerless in the foreseeable future. The signs are looming, such as the green-house effect and biodiversity loss due to the pollution of the air, water and soil. Ecological sustainability has drawn a growing amount of research in the fields of management and ecology. However, hardly any research on this topic can be identified in the field of information systems (IS). Along with the steam engine, railroad, telephone and electric generator, information technology has been considered one of the defining technologies in our cultural history, as it has changed people’s perceptions of the The authors would like to thank Ms Clare Watson for her help in editing the paper.

human–nature relationship (Bolter, 1984). Given their revolutionary effects, ISs are of utter importance in the pursuit of ecological sustainability. Of course, it can be argued that IS, the application of interacting information technologies to create purposeful systems, can increase the speed of environmental deterioration by enhancing the efficiency and productivity of pollution-generating organizations. However, it should also be acknowledged that IS can curb pollution by offering replacements in electronic form or reducing energy needs through enhanced computerized design and control. Promoting the latter role of ISs, we aim in this research to answer the following question: how can IS help organizations achieve ecological sustainability? Focusing on how organizations are motivated to act in the same legitimate way (i.e. eco-friendly way), we propose institutional theory as a lens to better understand how IS can be leveraged to achieve the three milestones of ecological sustainability, i.e. eco-efficiency, eco-equity and ecoeffectiveness. Our main contribution rests in a theoretical model, along with propositions, based on managerial research on sustainability, the roles of IS and institutional theory. Theoretical background Ecological sustainability Sustainability. Sustainability is a complex concept, not fully understood and developed (Mulvihill and Milan, 2007). Popularized in the Brundtland Commission Report issued by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987, sustainable development is defined as ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present world, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’’ (Brundtland, 1987). Traditionally, a single bottom line measurement of success is the generation of profits, namely the creation of stakeholder value (Friedman, 1970). Sustainable profit generation (i.e. economic sustainability) is pursued by many organizations, particularly the larger ones. Enticed by the opportunity of improving profitability, competitiveness and market share, many organizations focus their attention on economic sustainability alone. However, this single-minded focus on economic sustainability can only lead to short-term success. Organizations need to satisfy the sustainability of economic, social and environmental capitals simultaneously in order to succeed in the long run (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002). Satisfying the three interdependent dimensions of the ‘‘triple-bottom line’’ (Elkington, 1997), i.e. economic sustainability, social sustainability and ecological sustainability, constitutes the ultimate goal. This study focuses on ecological sustainability in particular. Ecological sustainability. A long-missing piece of the sustainability puzzle, ecological sustainability refers to ‘‘the ability of one or more entities, either individually or collectively, to exist and thrive (either unchanged or in evolved forms) for lengthy timeframes, in such a manner that the existence and flourishing of other collectivities of entities is permitted at related levels and in related systems’’ (Starik and Rands, 1995). Natural resources have long been taken for granted, the preservation and renewal of which are unlikely to be high on the organizational agenda. Lacking serious economic impact in the foreseeable future, future generations and society at large have not traditionally been considered stakeholders in organizational decision-making. In fact, the existence of both biological entities and organizations is based upon ecosystems. Human economic activities such as manufacturing, agriculture and forestry all rely on natural resources (Starik, 1995). Hence, ecological sustainability deserves higher priority than sustainable economic development (Starik and Rands, 1995). Natural resources should be added to the list of key resources that an organization relies on to ensure long-term viability (Hart, 1995).

IS and ecological sustainability

187

JSIT 10,3

188

In terms of ecological footprint, the three key criteria for corporate sustainability are eco-efficiency, eco-equity and eco-effectiveness (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002). Myriad firms have opted for eco-efficiency as their guiding principle, which reflects the firm’s ecological impact in economic terms (Schaltegger and Sturm, 1998). Eco-efficiency aspires to make the old, destructive system less so and therefore, only slows down the deterioration of nature with moral proscriptions and punitive demands. Eco-efficient practices work within the same system that produces the environmental problem – consuming non-renewable materials more productively does not help prevent the amount of non-renewable natural resources from decreasing. Eco-equity concerns the fair distribution of natural resources between current and future generations. Like ecoefficiency, however, conformity to environmental standards solely motivated by ecoequity can be superficial (Meyer and Rowan, 1977), such as ISO 14001 (an internationally accepted standard for an environmental management system) whose introduction seems to be motivated more by the concern for social legitimacy than by reason of economic efficiency (Boiral, 2007). Eco-effectiveness aims beyond merely reducing negative environmental impact by ending ecological degradation. Seeking an ultimate solution for ecological problems, eco-effectiveness oftentimes requires a shift of mindset and transformation of business models. With the compelling problem of environmental deterioration, the relationship between IS and ecological sustainability has attracted growing attention. ISs and technologies can mitigate environmental problems to some extent. Telecommuting has become a new way of work and life, and stands as a promising solution to traffic congestion and emissions. In the meantime, there is also a growing concern that information technology can also add to the environmental burden (Mingay, 2006). For example, computers and servers consume considerable energy. Disposal of computer equipment containing toxic substances represents a severe environmental threat. Practitioners and researchers endeavor to design and build a more eco-efficient data center by virtualizing data storage or by aggregating the geographically dispersed needs of data processing to a centralized location. Despite the growing attention on the relationship of IS and environmental problems, there is a need to understand the roles played by IS in global environmental endeavors. Roles of ISs The roles played by IS can be classified into three types: automate, informate (informate up and informate down) and transform (Schein, 1989). Cash et al. (1994) provide a concise description of the relationship between the three strategic roles – ‘‘When information technology substitutes for human effort, it automates a task or process. When information technology augments human effort, it informates a task or process. When information technology restructures, it transforms a set of tasks or processes’’ (p. ). Many organizations consider automation, the first role of IS, as a way to reduce costs. Organizations have automated myriad operations that used to be performed manually by replacing expensive human labor with advanced information technologies. According to Dewett and Jones (2001), IS also improve operational efficiency through the enhanced organizational ability of information processing. Besides automation of information processing, IS can also informate individuals and organizations by making visible previously concealed parts of a process in the system (Zuboff, 1988). IS improve an organization’s ability to link and enable organizational members, build codified knowledge bases, and improve boundary

spanning capabilities (Dewett and Jones, 2001). Upward and downward ISs inform people higher up and lower down in the organization, respectively. Within an organization, an upward informating system is often associated with enhanced organizational control, as it informs management in almost all aspects of business operations (Schein, 1989). During downward informating, both desired and undesired end products and byproducts (such as emissions) are made available for the scrutiny of stakeholders within and outside the organization. Local problems and issues are easily brought to the attention of the entire organization, the industry and even other parts of the world. IS open up the potential for a complete transformation of an organization and an industry. They promote innovation through improved collaboration and co-ordination (Dewett and Jones, 2001). The introduction of telecommunication, networking and business intelligence can fundamentally alter the nature of the products and the organization’s relationship with its customers and suppliers. Although it is tempting for organizations to adopt IS to achieve efficiency through automation, they can also generate long-term benefits by transforming the business (Brooke, 2000). Adoption of eco-friendly technologies and practices is only the first step towards ecological sustainability. Making these technologies and practices increasingly diffused and institutionalized is key, given that environmental degradation is a worldwide crisis. There is a long way to go before ecological responsibility and sustainability become the dominant paradigm in the business world, where success is still largely assessed in economic terms. Eco-friendly technologies and practices may not be cost-efficient in the short term, and therefore, their adoption and diffusion may not be considered rational by myopic firms. However, organizations could become more similar, in terms of ecological responsibility and consciousness, driven by the isomorphic forces and pressures of legitimacy (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Institutional theory represents a valid and useful approach to understanding ecologically sustainable organizations (Jennings and Zandbergen, 1995) by exploring how IS can influence human action through institutional properties and how institutional factors stimulate the adoption, diffusion and formalization of eco-friendly technologies. Institutional theory The theoretical viewpoint of institutional theory (Meyer and Rowan, 1977, Zucker, 1987) shows promise for understanding how organizations may embrace sustainability. Institutional theory has long been used to explain why organizations look alike after starting out differently. In order to achieve the ultimate goal of global environmental sustainability, it is of utmost importance to bring about a large-scale mindset shift and widespread adoption of eco-friendly practices among organizations worldwide and make them institutionalized over time. Institutional theory focuses on the process by which certain ways of thinking and doing become accepted practice or embedded in institutions (Scott, 1987). Thus, it is useful for describing how IS may, over time, come to contribute to ecological sustainability in organizations. Institutionalization is defined as ‘‘the process by which actions are repeated and given similar meaning by self and others’’ (Scott, 1987, p. 117). Institutional theory focuses on the deeper and more resilient aspects of social structure: the processes by which structures, including schemas, rules, norms and routines, become rule-like social facts. Thus, it explains how organizations become more isomorphic by adopting similar practices that are considered legitimate (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).


189

JSIT 10,3

190

The institutionalization process can be motivated through three kinds of pressures established as authoritative guidelines for social behavior: mimetic, normative and coercive pressures (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Mimetic institutional pressures are at work when organizational pressure to conform comes from other organizations and develops into an uncertainty-coping strategy. Normative institutional pressures come into play when cultural expectations press organizations to act in a legitimate way. Coercive institutional pressures are present when organizations are driven to act alike because of governmental laws and regulations. Proposed framework and propositions Based on the prior literature, we propose a conceptual model (Figure 1) and a set of propositions. The overarching model consists of three components corresponding to the three milestones of ecological sustainability: eco-efficiency, eco-equity and ecoeffectiveness. We will discuss each component in more detail. Eco-efficiency Many ‘‘green’’ organizations have built eco-efficiency into their strategic framework. According to DeSimone and Popoff (1997, p. 47), eco-efficiency is achieved by ‘‘the delivery of competitively-priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and bring quality of life, while progressively reducing ecological impacts and resource intensity throughout the life cycle to a level at least in line with the earth’s carrying capacity’’. Eco-efficiency lays great emphasis on the commercial viability of environmental initiatives, which are regarded as both a business and an environmental opportunity. However, eco-friendly products are not usually developed purely on feelgood grounds. Cost reduction motivates organizations to move towards eco-efficient production and consumption. Literally, efficiency means ‘‘doing more with less’’. Though rooted in early industrialization, today it is still the foremost goal pursued by organizations. The economic opportunities arising from eco-efficiency are a major motivation for organizations to be ecologically responsive (Bansal and Roth, 2000). Decisions are made on a cost-benefit analysis, with financial benefits as the foremost goal. Under the intensified competition for resources, organizations’ adoption of energy efficient technologies or practices serves a functional purpose. Thus, at this stage, it is hard to tell whether an organization advocating eco-friendly business operations through IS is genuinely interested in promoting ecological sustainability, or whether ecological sustainability is merely a byproduct of the pursuit of economic sustainability. IS enable organizations to achieve eco-efficiency through automation (i.e. operation and control by electronic means), reducing human intervention to a minimum and

Figure 1. Conceptual model of ISs and ecological sustainability

leading to enhanced information efficiency. In particular, they engender eco-efficient practices through two ways: an information technology nature swap (Shrivastava, 1995) and enhanced information processing capability (Figure 2). An information technology nature swap involves practices such as telecommuting and digitalizing. Telecommuting replaces the physical components of interaction with voice communication, email, electronic files and data exchange. It generates considerable organizational savings by reducing overhead, office space, transportation costs and materials. The prevalence of home offices also leads to societal savings through reducing pollution, saving energy and cutting traffic congestion. Digitizing documents and e-filing help achieve energy savings by saving paper, the manufacture of which is energy intensive and generates large amounts of waste. Enhanced information processing capability instills ecological efficiency into business operations at multiple levels. For instance, enhanced information processing capability leads to increased planning accuracy, which enables organizations to reduce buffer inventory. Improved control over the manufacturing process allows organizations to maximize the throughput and output from raw materials. Logistics ISs provide timely and accurate information on stock holding and whereabouts, and thereby allow organizations to concentrate inventory at a smaller number of strategic locations (logistics hubs). Eco-responsible practices facilitated by IS through an information technology nature swap or improved information processing capability are disseminated mainly under mimetic pressures. Due to their inherent economic and environmental benefits, the eco-efficient application of technologies, such as telecommuting, going paperless and automated manufacturing systems, are steadily gaining popularity among organizations. Telecommuting has gained worldwide interest and grown rapidly – in the USA, the number of workers involved in telecommuting increased from about 7 million in the mid 1990s (Feldman and Gainey, 1997) to around 19 million in the 2000s (Davis, 2001). In response to the rising cost of its eco-responsible practices, DuPont adopted environmental knowledge systems to monitor the ebb and flow of ecological issues and process environmental information (Carberry, 2001). The diffusion of such systems among other organizations in the chemical industry can be explained by the notion that an organization can secure its legitimacy by conforming to the environmental standards implemented by industrial leaders (Nehrt, 1998). Therefore, we propose that mimetic pressures are the major driving forces which lead to widespread adoption of eco-efficient practices through IS. P1.


191

ISs automation can be leveraged to achieve eco-efficiency. The prevalence of such practices is driven by mimetic pressures.

Figure 2. Eco-efficiency nurtured by automating to created mimetic pressures

JSIT 10,3

192

Eco-equity Although eco-efficiency is an accepted industrial solution, relying on eco-efficiency to build a green earth is hardly a strategy for success in the long term, due to its economic value orientation. Eco-equity needs to be instilled into the organizational value system in order to increase the number of organizations embarking on eco-friendly strategies and processes, even in the absence of cost-efficiency. Eco-equity lies at the nexus of the relationship between business and society (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002). Eco-equity is an environment centered principle and refers to the ‘‘equity between peoples and generations and, in particular, the equal rights of all peoples to environmental resources’’ (Gray and Bebbington, 2000, p. 3). At the heart of nearly all sustainability conceptions is the fair distribution of resources, both within and between generations (Gladwin and Kennelly, 1995). Moving beyond stakeholders of the current generation, eco-equity focuses on our social responsibility for the future generations who will be the ones to bear the bulk of the damage due to our relentless consumption. To cultivate eco-equity, the entrenched traditional views of the human–nature relationship, such as anthropocentrism and technocentrism, need to be deinstitutionalized (Daly and Cobb, 1994). Their form or structure may disappear, but more importantly, their meaning and underlying values may perish or transform into qualitatively different ones (Jennings and Zandbergen, 1995). Meanwhile, it is instrumental to make new values become rulelike social facts within and across organizations for them to be institutionalized over time. Eco-responsible values and beliefs external to the organization can also play a significant role in shaping and determining organizational norms. IS can enhance information flows and take advantage of various communication opportunities to educate the audience and raise awareness of environmental problems. The public understanding of certain environmental issues can be enhanced through IS that distribute information more quickly, broadly and cheaply. With the informating role, IS will increase the salience of ecological issues, namely the extent to which the environmental issues have an impact on organizations. Issue salience is determined by the certainty, transparency and emotivity of the issues (Bansal and Roth, 2000). IS make critical information on environmental performance of organizations more salient not only to the organizational members, shareholders, customers and suppliers but also to governance institutions and society at large. Certainty refers to the degree to which an issue’s ecological outcomes can be measured. Geographical information systems have been widely used to monitor changes in the natural environment, such as the pollution in rain water. Transparency is the extent to which an ecological issue can be easily attributed to a specific polluting organization. Environmental information is codified and stored in databases, which measure and monitor the environmental performance of different units within the organization. Thus, the transparency of ecological issues is improved. Emotivity refers to the degree to which an ecological issue elicits an emotional response from an organization. Electronic media differ in information richness. The use of an appropriate medium can create an enduring emotional impact on the audience. When pictures and video clips of slaughtered seals on the bloodstained snow are posted on the Internet, seal hunting grabs significant public attention and arouses deep feelings. Considering the previous argument, we propose that IS can positively affect an issue’s salience by increasing the certainty, transparency and emotivity of ecological problems. Thus, IS can play an important role in nurturing eco-equity by making the audience more informed and eco-conscious.

P2.

Through influences over the salience of ecological issues (through increased certainty, transparency and emotivity), ISs contribute to the development of eco-equity through informating stakeholders.

IS contribute to the cultivation of eco-equity through informating stakeholders. The adoption of eco-equity-oriented practices is mainly driven by normative and coercive forces (Figure 3). Both internal and external stakeholders, such as organizational members, customers, local communities, environmental interest groups and governance institutions, urge organizations to consider ecological consequences in their decision-making (Starik, 1995). Organizations are encouraged, and sometimes forced through laws and regulations, to be ecologically responsive in order to avert negative public attention (Dillon and Fischer, 1992) or financial penalties. On the one hand, downward-ISs facilitate the cultivation of eco-equity by making ecological consciousness infiltrate the organization through transparent access to environmental information. On the other hand, with organizational responsiveness mandated under coercive pressure, upward-ISs can be employed to facilitate the enforcement of environmental regulations by allowing management and governance institutions centralized control over environmental information. The goal is to achieve an equitable solution for the distribution of natural capital between us and the generations to come. Informating down. According to Starik and Rands (1995), three out of the five factors identified to account for the overall underdevelopment of ecological sustainability are related to many people’s current mindset: an underdeveloped appreciation of the benefits of healthy and diverse ecosystems, insufficient public understanding of the urgency of the ecological problems faced by organizations and a lack of understanding about the required actions at various levels. Downward ISs can increase the salience of ecological issues and thereby foster eco-equity by making the information on ecological impacts of organizational activities accessible to employees. Ecological tragedy and potential threats, previously only known to the locals, are now easily brought to global attention by the Web. In turn, ecological-friendly values will induce organizational members to champion environmental initiatives (Andersson and Bateman, 2000; Lawrence and Morell, 1995), such as grassroots environmental responses. IS can also forge links between organizations and stakeholders to advance global citizenship and ecological entrepreneurship (Pastakia, 1998). Both information processing of new observations and assigning salience to these observations through social construction activities generate awareness that further leads to policy commitment and implementation (Winn and Angell, 2000). By increasing the certainty, transparency and emotivity of environmental issues, IS heighten public concern about ecological issues such as toxic waste, ozone depletion, global warming and loss of bio-diversity. This heightened public concern about environmental issues creates normative forces which, in turn, drive organizations to publicize sustainability efforts. In response to the growing demands for information on


193

Figure 3. Eco-equity fostered through increased issue salience by informating up and down

JSIT 10,3

194

their environmental performance, a growing number of organizations have begun to use web-based sustainability reporting to communicate with external stakeholders (Adams and Frost, 2006) on their environmental footprint and endeavors to minimize their negative environmental impact in order to project a responsible image. Such practices are common, especially among companies in pollution-prone industries, such as the oil and electronic industries. At the same time, ethical motives encourage organizations to behave in an ecologically friendly way because they have been internalized as the ‘‘right thing to do’’ (Lampe et al., 1991). Organizations’ compliance with norms may be for pragmatic reasons (Oliver, 1991). By referencing the prevailing values and practices in the public domain, environmental advocates can legitimatize eco-friendly technologies and practices. According to Bansal and Roth (2000), organizations are motivated to pursue ecological responsibilities for fear of feedback arising from the grassroots, as people will publicize their negative environmental impacts. This is especially true in the information age. The values of the organization and its members, especially management, play a key role in encouraging these firms to consider and assess their role in society (Andersson and Batemen, 1998). Powerful members of an organization are more likely to accept changes in organizational operations and strategies if they fit with their values (Andersson and Bateman, 2000; Dutton and Ashford, 1993; Stead and Stead, 1992). Eco-equity is not determined by people’s mindsets, nor is it determined by IS. Rather, it arises from the interaction of both. Accordingly, we suggest that IS informates downwards to make the general audience more informed about the environmental footprint of a business’s operations. Heightened awareness is crucial to the development of eco-equity, and drives the spread of eco-equitable practices through normative pressures. P3.

ISs contribute to eco-equity by informating downwards to build environmental awareness in organizations and the community; such ecoequity-oriented practices gain popularity mainly under normative pressures.

Informating up. Legislation is of the utmost importance in inducing ecological responsiveness in organizations (Bansal and Roth, 2000). As widely recognized, legal costs, fines and escalating penalties have punctuated the importance of compliance with legislation. IS increase the salience of the ecological issue by informating the environmental impacts of firms’ activities upwards to management and third-sector institutions (such as governments), and thereby foster eco-equity through enhanced coercive pressure both within and outside organizations. IS facilitates the enforcement of environmental regulations and policies through codified knowledge systems and databases. Electronic road pricing systems have achieved great success in abating traffic congestion in Singapore and London, among other adopters. Such systems give governance institutions centralized control over, and real-time access to, traffic information so that they can monitor road congestion and optimize traffic flow. Whereas there used to be a lack of consensus over the severity and scale of the consequences of environmental degradation (Shrivastava, 1995), IS provide a common knowledge base for an organizational assessment of environmental performance. An integrated IS, such as an enterprise resource planning system, is key to the sustainability evaluation and reporting processes, because it facilitates organizationwide data collection, processing and sharing. An environmental data management system, such as IBM’s environmental performance database, is a central computerized repository designed to house, transmit, communicate or process selected

environmental data. These data can be used for trend monitoring, parameter specific studies, remediation studies or to create a picture of environmental characteristics in an area, enabling organizations themselves and governments to monitor organizations’ environmental impacts. For example, ISO 14001 environmental management systems are computerized in many organizations to allow quicker and more flexible information access (Boiral, 2007). Moreover, a salient ecological issue is likely to have a potentially significant effect on profitability, as governments are more likely to enforce fines and penalties (Bansal and Roth, 2000). Large-scale adoption of such eco-equity-oriented practices is mainly driven by coercive forces. Organizations or governance institutions use IS to gain timely and accurate control over ecological information, thereby enforcing environmental regulations and policies. We argue that IS can informate upwards to allow authorities access to environmental data and thereby enforce the execution of environmental regulations. P4.

ISs contribute to eco-equity by informating upwards to facilitate the enforcement of environmental regulations.

Eco-effectiveness Eco-effectiveness emerges as the ultimate goal of environmental protection. It aims to stop contamination and depletion, instead of only slowing down their speed, by directing individual and organizational attention to the underlying and fundamental factors of environmental problems and to make possible long-term prosperity through a fundamental redesign of the system. In essence, efficiency is about ‘‘doing things right’’, while effectiveness is about ‘‘doing the right thing’’ (Brooke, 2000). IS can be developed to support eco-effective business models. The open source phenomenon (Watson et al., 2008) for example, is a revolutionary model of software development that transcends physical boundaries by replacing tangible resources with electronic ones. It instills eco-effectiveness into major stages of the product lifecycle: the creation and distribution of software products are no longer constrained by physical presence. Software developers collaborate through electronic means without being physically colocated. Likewise, the delivery and maintenance of such products no longer relies on physical packaging or shelf-space (Watson et al., 2008). Interaction between suppliers and clients takes place in virtual space. The scope of sustainability is far beyond a single organization. An understanding of ecological problems as systematically interconnected and interdependent is required in order to develop ecological sustainability (Gladwin and Kennelly, 1995). The organizational field, facilitated by interorganizational relationships, is a key institutional element in systems for sustainability (Jennings and Zandbergen, 1995). DiMaggio and Powell (1983, p. 148) define an organizational field as consisting of ‘‘those organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resources and product customers, regulatory agencies and other organizations that produce similar services or products’’. The relationship intensity is based on the proximity and interconnectedness of the organizations in the field (Oliver, 1991). Proximity can be social or geographic. Interconnectedness depends on the interaction frequency and resource dependency of the organizations (Bansal and Roth, 2000). IS can transform an industry by fundamentally changing the relationships among enterprises in an organizational field, in terms of both their social proximity and interconnectedness. By transcending the boundary of time and space, IS enable entities


195

JSIT 10,3

196

to interact more frequently, more easily and more cheaply, as in the case of open source. As a result, they can greatly increase the social proximity, interaction frequency and resource dependency among organizations and individuals in a value chain. Networks, telecommunications and IS have not only dramatically linked and enabled organizational members across time and space among entities in an organizational field. In fact, all three institutional pressures have a role in triggering the transformative role of IS to achieve eco-effectiveness (Figure 4). Enhanced communication helps build consensus around the meaning of ecological sustainability. Mimicking each other’s practices results from shared understanding among the organizations (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). In addition, the interconnectedness of an organizational field will also produce normative pressure on organizations. With increased interaction frequency and intensity enabled by IS, organizational members, owners and local communities will be more interconnected, and thereby put organizations under intense scrutiny and make them more concerned about their legitimacy within the field (Bansal and Roth, 2000). Coercive institutional pressures also arise from the interconnectedness of organizations. An industry’s negative image (in terms of environmental impacts) and the industry associations will facilitate the development of field cohesion (Goes and Park, 1997). Sectors labeled ‘‘dirty’’, such as the mining and oil industries, will be subject to greater scrutiny. In general, the members of an organizational field cope with such situations in two ways. Formal field-wide institutions, such as industry associations, are established. The aim is to further engage the field members in collectively managing the industry’s image by transferring ‘‘best practices’’ across organizations or lobbying governance institutions to modify regulations and policies (Bansal and Roth, 2000). In this way, an industry association builds coercive pressures upon organizations, or attempts to change the coercive pressures imposed on the organizational field as a whole. Another way is for organizations to informally monitor the impact of each other’s activities on the natural environment and industry image, inducing normative pressures. P5.

Through mimetic, normative and coercive pressures, ISs transform industries to achieve eco-effectiveness.

Conclusion This research explores the roles of IS in developing ecological sustainability under different institutional pressures. Drawing on sustainability studies and institutional theory, we suggested a conceptual model and propositions to be further investigated through empirical research. Our work reinforces the argument about the importance of

Figure 4. Eco-effectiveness developed by transforming the relationships in organizational fields

ecological sustainability and furthers its understanding in the IS context. It constitutes an early effort towards building an IS research agenda on ecological sustainability. With the growing demands for organizational accountability regarding environmental outcomes, we contribute to the practice by identifying how IS could be deployed to facilitate eco-friendly operations. We believe that it is important for both researchers and practitioners to obtain a deeper understanding of how to incorporate IS into their eco-consciousness and environmentally friendly efforts. Such understanding will shorten the time organizations will need to achieve ecological sustainability and overall corporate sustainability in the long run. We offer some academic and practical implications of the study. Academic implications The natural environment is often ignored in economic policy and remains a tangential concern even when it starts to impinge on such policy (Arrow et al., 1995). Organization- or economy-wide reforms designed to promote development have been encouraged with little consideration of their environmental consequences. There are two possible explanations for the fact that the environment has not been given enough weight in managerial decisions and IS studies. First, evaluation of the contributions to human welfare of the natural environment is fraught with uncertainty. Of a purely public goods nature, a large portion of the contributions may not be easily traceable or even show up in commercial markets (Costanza et al., 1997). As such, the benefits we draw from the natural environment, in the form of natural resources or ecosystem services (such as waste assimilation) are not as adequately quantified as manufactured products or economic services. Second, there is a perception among people that the relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation represents an inverted U-shaped curve, assuming the environmental capability of supporting indefinite economic development. However, Arrow et al. (1995) call for caution in interpreting such inverted U-shaped relationships as they do not hold when human exploitation exceeds the carrying capacity of the natural environment. This study calls for a new way of examining the roles of IS in organizations. First, we need to build the dimension of ecological sustainability into our research on IS. Many studies focus on the adoption and diffusion of IS without differentiating their environmental impact. Systems designed for efficiency maximize output for a given amount of input (e.g. raw materials, time and labor). They do not necessarily take account of the side effects or byproducts detrimental to the natural environment. As a result, IS can sometimes speed up environmental deterioration by automating business operations with negative environmental impact. On the contrary, IS designed for effectiveness aim to address not only productivity but also the social responsibility of the organization. Telecommuting-related applications, such as remote desktop, alleviate traffic congestion, save office space and provide employees with flexibility. Therefore, without awareness of the potential environmental impact of IS, innovation and diffusion research can be subject to a pro-innovation bias (Rogers, 1995). Moreover, environmental awareness can also help us develop a more realistic evaluation of the value of IS to influence practices. Prior studies largely assume that IS are beneficial and rarely factor in the environmental impact when they examine how IS improve organizations’ financial performance. We need to incorporate the dimension of natural environment into our framework for future investigation of IS value. What’s more, IS academics can also guide practices by injecting environmental awareness into


197

JSIT 10,3

198

education. We need to put the long-missing piece of ecological sustainability into the curriculum to nurture awareness among future generations of practitioners. This study provides a foundation for future research. First, future research can venture into individual- or societal-level investigations of IS and ecological sustainability. Ecological sustainability is a multi-dimensional goal that requires action from individuals, organizations and societies. This study focuses on the organizational level from the perspective of institutional theory. However, factors at the individual and societal levels can also come into play and affect organizational decisions. The complex interplay between individual, organizational and societal factors warrants further examination. Institutional theory applies to multiple levels, such as individual, organizational, or societal levels. Therefore, future researchers can extend the current study by applying institutional theory to the individual or societal levels. Second, they can also take a different view of IS. Our study represents an early effort towards understanding the relationship of IS and ecological sustainability, considering IS a possible solution to environmental issues. However, IS are not a panacea for environmental issues. Indeed, they could add to environmental degradation if not properly managed or deployed. An information infrastructure (such as computers, servers and data centers) consumes considerable energy. Disposal of electronic waste (such as a computer monitor) can cause serious landfill contamination. Future research may investigate IS as a contributor to the problem and develop a more complete picture of IS and ecological sustainability. Practical implications The push to curb environmental deterioration is beginning to redraw the industrial landscape, and gains and losses need be calculated in new terms. More and more organizations embrace green thinking and practices. In order to stay competitive in this shift, organizations need to be prepared for changes in both mindset and behavior. First, practitioners and IS professionals need to understand whether a specific IS is designed for efficiency or effectiveness, in order to curb environmental degradation. It is of fundamental importance that IS professionals take into consideration the environmental impact of the technologies they design and produce, and that practitioners are aware of the environmental impact of the technologies they use. Second, organizations can leverage IS to capitalize on the large-scale learning about how to curb environmental degradation. Going green is a constant learning path. There will be a learning curve for every individual and every organization. It is not necessarily a painless shift. For example, high concentrations of biodiesel can cause fuel to freeze at a higher temperature than regular diesel, rendering delivery vehicles inoperable and interrupting logistics. IS can play two important roles along the learning path. First, they enhance intra- and inter-organizational co-ordination to cope with unexpected challenges through efficient information flow, especially, when business operations become more and more geographically scattered. Regarding the prior example, IS and telecommunication networks allow supporting staff to track a transport fleet and provide timely repairs and, at the same time, enable management to mobilize buffer resources through timely co-ordination and the initiation of backup plans. Second, IS support organizational and societal learning. There are around 1,000 eco-communities across the USA. For such an pioneering attempt, it is difficult to have everything figured out (Banjo, 2008). A knowledge sharing system can document lessons learned during any trial and error experience and make it available to others engaging in similar endeavors.

Ecological sustainability concerns everybody, every organization and every society. The exacerbating environmental problems, such as biodiversity loss, pollution and emissions, have global implications across generations. Through this study, we hope to call for the attention of IS researchers and practitioners to make IS an integral piece of the solution.


References Adams, C.A. and Frost, G.R. (2006), ‘‘Accessibility and functionality of the corporate web site: implications for sustainability reporting’’, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 15, pp. 275-87. Andersson, L.M. and Bateman, T.S. (2000), ‘‘Individual environmental initiative: championing natural environmental issues in US business organizations’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 548-70. Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Jansson, B.-O., Levin, S., Ma¨ler, K.-G., Perrings, C. and Pimentel, D. (1995), ‘‘Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment’’, Ecological Economics, Vol. 15, pp. 91-5. Banjo, S. (2008), ‘‘You are how you live’’, The Wall Street Journal, 24 March 2008, p. R13. Bansal, P. and Roth, K. (2000), ‘‘Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 717-36. Boiral, O. (2007), ‘‘Corporate greening through ISO 14001: a rational myth?’’, Organization Science, Vol. 18, pp. 127-46. Bolter, J.D. (1984), Turing’s Man, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. Brooke, C. (2000), ‘‘A framework for evaluating organizational choice and process redesign issues’’, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 15, pp. 17-28. Brundtland, G.H. (1987), Our Common Future: The Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Carberry, J. (2001), ‘‘Using environmental knowledge systems at DuPont’’, in Richards, D.J., Allenby, B.R. and Compton, W.D. (Eds), Information Systems and the Environment, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 81-6. Cash, J.I., Eccles, R.G., Nohria, N. and Nolan, R.L. (1994), Building the InformationAge Organization: Structure Control and Information Technologies, Richard D. Irwin, Boston, MA. Costanza, R., D’arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. and Van den Belt, M. (1997), ‘‘The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital (cover story)’’, Nature, Vol. 387, p. 253. Daly, H. and Cobb, J. (1994), For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future, Beacon Press, Boston, MA. Davis, T. (2001), Federal Telecommuting Programs: Congressman, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Virginia, 22 March 2001. AN: 32Y20019200003920. Desimone, L. and Popoff, F. (1997), Eco-efficiency: The Business Link to Sustainable Development, MIT Press, Cambridge. Dewett, T. and Jones, G.R. (2001), ‘‘The role of information technology in the organization: a review, model, and assessment’’, Journal of Management, Vol. 27, pp. 313-46. Dillon, P.S. and Fischer, K. (1992), Environmental Management in Corporations: Methods and Motivations, Tufts Center for Environmental Management, Medford, MA. Dimaggio, P.J. (1991), ‘‘Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: US art museums, 1920-1940’’, in Powell, W.W. and Dimaggio, P.J. (Eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press, London.

199

JSIT 10,3

200

Dimaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), ‘‘The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, pp. 147-60. Dutton, J.E. and Ashford, S.J. (1993), ‘‘Selling issues to top management’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, pp. 397-428. Dyllick, T. and Hockerts, K. (2002), ‘‘Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability’’, Business Strategy and The Environment , Vol. 11, pp. 130-41. Elkington, J. (1997), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, Capstone, Oxford. Feldman, D. and Gainey, T. (1997), ‘‘Patterns of telecommuting and their consequences: framing the research agenda’’, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 7, pp. 369-88. Friedman, M. (1970), ‘‘The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits’’, New York Times Magazine, 13 September 1970, pp. 32-3, 122, 124, 126. Gladwin, T.N. and Kennelly, J.J. (1995), ‘‘Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 874-907. Goes, J.B. and Park, S.H. (1997), ‘‘Interorganizational links and innovation: the case of hospital services’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, p. 673. Gray, R.H. and Bebbington, K.J. (2000), ‘‘Environmental accounting, managerialism and sustainability: is the planet safe in the hands of business and accounting?’’, Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, Vol. 1, pp. 1-44. Hart, S.L. (1995), ‘‘A natural-resource-based view of the firm’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 986-1014. Jennings, P.D. and Zandbergen, P.A. (1995), ‘‘Ecologically sustainable organizations: an institutional approach’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 1015-52. Lampe, M., Ellis, S.R. and Drummond, C.K. (1991), ‘‘What companies are doing to meet environmental protection responsibilities: balancing legal, ethical, and profit concerns’’, Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society, pp. 527-37. Lawrence, A.T. and Morell, D. (1995), ‘‘Leading-edge environmental management: motivation, opportunity, resources and processes’’, in Collins, D. and Starik, M. (Eds), Special Research Volume of Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Sustaining the Natural Environment: Empirical Studies on the Interface between Nature and Organizations, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), ‘‘Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony’’, The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, pp. 340-63. Mingay, S. (2006), ‘‘The IT industry is part of the climate change and sustainability problem’’, available at: http://gartner.com/DisplayDocumnet?id=498994 (accessed 23 September 2008). Mulvihill, P.R. and Milan, M.J. (2007), ‘‘Subtle world: beyond sustainability, beyond information’’, Futures, Vol. 39, pp. 657-68. Nehrt, C. (1998), ‘‘Maintainability of first mover advantages when environmental regulations differ between countries’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 77-97. Oliver, C. (1991), ‘‘Strategic responses to institutional processes’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, pp. 145-79. Pastakia, A. (1998), ‘‘Grassroots ecopreneurs: change agents for a sustainable society’’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 11, pp. 157-73. Powell, W.W. and Dimaggio, P.J. (1991), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, NY. Schaltegger, S. and Sturm, A. (1998), Eco-efficiency by Eco-controlling, VDF, Zurich. Schein, E.H. (1989), ‘‘The role of the CEO in the management of change: the case of IT management in the 1990s’’, working paper, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), MA, August, No. 89-075. Scott, W.R. (1987), ‘‘The adolescence of institutional theory’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 493-511. Shrivastava, P. (1995), ‘‘The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 936-60. Starik, M. (1995), ‘‘Corporate environmentalism in a global economy: societal values in international technology transfer’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 1105-7. Starik, M. and Rands, G.P. (1995), ‘‘Weaving an integrated web: multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecological sustainable organizations’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 908-35. Stead, W.E. and Stead, J.G. (1992), Management for a Small Planet, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Watson, R.T., Boudreau, M.-C., York, P.T., Greiner, M.E. and Wynn, D. (2008), ‘‘The business of open source’’, Communication ACM, Vol. 51, pp. 41-6. Winn, M. and Angell, L. (2000), ‘‘Towards a process model of corporate greening’’, Organization Studies, Vol. 21, pp. 1119-47. Zuboff, S. (1988), In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power, Heinemann Professional, Oxford. Zucker, L.G. (1987), ‘‘Institutional theories of organization’’, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 13, pp. 443-64. Corresponding author Adela J.W. Chen can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints


201