Page 199 - Sustainability Communication Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Theoritical Foundations
P. 199
182 A. Möller
Good examples for a new ‘language’ are the Sankey diagrams used to visualize
material and energy flows. In the 1990s software tools were developed to support
material and energy flow analyses and life cycle assessments. The idea was to pres-
ent the results in the form of eco-balances (period-oriented input-output balances
and life cycle inventories in the product-oriented perspective). In fact, the tools are
able to generate these tables with a large number of entries on the input and output
side. However, eco-balances are much less popular than expected. It is obviously
not possible to use the tables as arguments in communication processes. In fact, the
first environmental reports in the 1990s included detailed eco-balances. Reports
today present the results in a different way. Surprisingly, an additional visualiza-
tion instrument to present the results in the form of Sankey diagrams was much
more successful. Software development for corporate sustainability has to think
about ‘languages’. How do methods and tools define new languages? And how can
members of an organization understand these new languages? Methods and instru-
ments are still being discussed with regard to correctness (data quality, correctness
of methods, system boundaries etc.). The language-action perspective (LAP) sheds
light on the question of usability. How can these tools become an important part of
conversation support systems? And what are the resulting requirements for the
respective software components? Building such software systems is still an unmet
challenge (de Moor and Aakhus 2006).
Finally, it is possible to distinguish two different ways in which computer soft-
ware can support corporate sustainability communication: firstly as a new medium
with email, instant messaging, OSNs etc.; and secondly as a support tool for good
arguments by providing visualization of non-sustainable structures of value creation.
The idea behind this tool is that problematic generalized action orientations cannot
be enhanced or replaced directly by new ones.
Conclusions
The most important conclusion from our consideration of images of computer appli-
cations in organisations is that computers are regarded traditionally as decision sup-
port systems. Computers should support rational decision-making. Communication
can be treated as data exchange between decision makers. However, this is accurate
only for regular ‘business as usual’ decisions. But the reality in organisations is quite
different; “most, if not all, of a manager’s key decisions tend to be fuzzy problems,
not well understood by them or the organization, and their personal judgment is
essential” (Keen and Scott-Morton 1978: 58). This applies in particular to environ-
mental protection and corporate sustainability, which are not in line with general
action orientations in Western economies. Corporate sustainability is obviously not a
problem that can be solved by decision makers with the aid of conventional decision
support systems. In future, enhanced decision support systems, including compo-
nents for material flow analysis, life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting,
may be able to support organisations that are already sustainable. But today most