Page 200 - Sustainability Communication Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Theoritical Foundations
P. 200
15 Computer Support for Cooperative Sustainability Communication 183
organisations are not in such a situation. Winograd and Flores conclude that “Instead
of talking about ‘decisions’ or ‘problems’ we talk of ‘situations of irresolution’, in
which we sense conflict about an answer to the question ‘What needs to be done?’”
(1986: 147). Here sustainability communication comes into play. Sustainability com-
munication stands for the first step in a two-phase approach to corporate sustainable
development.
And software support is required to help effectively answer the question ‘What
needs to be done?’ Here ‘decisions’ emerge from communication processes within
the organization or between the organization and its stakeholders. Speech act theory
helps us not only to understand these processes better, it also contains formalization
steps that are required for designing effective conversation support systems. The
purpose of software systems is not only to support undisturbed communication and
not only to find solutions in individual cases. The main purpose of conversation sup-
port systems is to identify new – and more sustainable – routines. Taylor would ask
for new standards. So, computer support for corporate sustainability should be
considered and used for two different reasons: (1) in a phase of transition and in
‘situations of irresolution’ as an effective communication medium and (2) in everyday
routine situations as a decision support system.
References
Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Austin, J. (1971). Performative-constative. In J. Searle (Ed.), The philosophy of language
(pp. 13–22). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Avrahami, D., & Hudson, S.E. (2006). Communication characteristics of instant messaging:
Effects and predictions of interpersonal relationships. Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Banff, Alberta.
Berlin, D., & Uhlin, H.-E. (2004). Opportunity cost principles for life cycle assessment: Toward
strategic decision-making in agriculture. Progress in Industrial Ecology, 1(1/2/3), 187–202.
Burritt, R., Hahn, T., & Schaltegger, S. (2002). Towards a comprehensive framework for environ-
mental management accounting. Australian Accounting Review, 12(2), 93–109.
Consoli, F., Allen, D., Boustead, I., Fava, J. A., Franklin, W. E., Jensen, A. A., de Oude, N.,
Parrish, R., Perriman, R., Postlethwaite, D., Quay, B., Seguin, J., & Vigon, B. W. (1993).
Guidelines for life-cycle assessment: A code of practice. Brussels/Washington, DC: Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC).
Costello, C., & Molloy, O. (2004). Orchestrating supply chain interactions using emerging process
description languages and business rules. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
Electronic Commerce (pp. 21–30). Delft, The Netherlands: ACM.
Dabbish, L. A., Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Understanding email use: Predicting
action on a message. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 691–700). Portland, Oregon, USA: ACM.
Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process innovation: Rengneering work through information technology.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
De Moor, A., & Aakhus, M. (2006). Argumentation support: From technologies to tools.
Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 93–98.
Dietz, J. L. M. (2006). The deep structure of business processes. Communications of the ACM,
49(5), 58–64.