Page 112 - Sustainability Communication Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Theoritical Foundations

8 Communication Theory and Sustainability Discourse 95

also serves to alarm society. In the mirror of the mass media, society encounters,
among other things, its structural problems, is confronted with its catastrophes, eco-
logical risks and, in an extraordinary variety, scandals. What this means for sustain-
able development is that there are – together with the mass media – two possibilities
of educating, warning and improving the public. Either ecological (that is, sustain-
ability) communication itself already implies an attention factor (environmental
catastrophe, new data, high profile demonstrations etc.), which are predestined for
media coverage and trigger alarm, or sustainability discourse must adapt to the logic
of the mass media, must accept journalistic support and medialise itself, so that its
communication contributions and visions are broadcast, become known and have
consequences. Without effective medialisation there is no popularisation.

Conclusions

The political, moral and scientific discussions centring on sustainable development
have not gone unnoticed in the economic field and have triggered a number of reac-
tions in business enterprises and associations. In the course of establishing sustainable
objectives, the path between protest movements, NGOs and economic actors has
changed in a number of ways, from ignorance to resonance, from confrontation to
cooperation. Many economic and other organizations have since taken up sustainabil-
ity issues, discussed them internally and structurally implemented them in a number
of different ways. The genuine communication form of organisations is the decision
(Luhmann 2000). Within the context of their other commitments and themes, organi-
sations have been able and are able to take sustainability into account in its economic,
ecological and/or social dimension (or not!). This means that future decisions are
bound by this decision and are thus restricted. “Decision-making programmes define
the conditions responsible for the accuracy of decisions” (Luhmann 2000: 257).
Sustainability would then make for a superior decision programme that sets
criteria for the evaluation of future projects and organisational objectives. To formu-
late this more precisely, sustainability functions as an output-oriented goal pro-
gramme. When sustainability is the goal of what is in principle open-ended planning
for the future, then the choice of the possible means (e.g. corporate action) is lim-
ited. At the same time by setting such goals the company legitimises its decisions
and actions – regardless of whether goals are abandoned or there are unintended
consequences or other social values it might pursue (see for example Senge 1999).
Organisations are also necessary in a second case, namely if sustainability is to be
addressable, specifically attributable and claimable. When organisations have imple-
mented sustainable development programs they publicise this under their own name,
while others as an organisational addressee make demands for sustainability and still
other organisations set up guidelines and serve as an addressee for queries or requests
for support. Without organised communication, themes cannot be kept visible over
the long term, nor specifically attributed, nor disseminated from a specific address.
Sustainability communication is and remains a difficult issue of drawing distinc-
tions and creating resonance. On the one hand there are calls for moderation along