Page 28 - Sustainability Communication Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Theoritical Foundations

1 Sustainability Communication – An Introduction 11

In order to implement a vision of sustainability and of sustainable development, a
diverse set of political instruments is needed. Since the concept of sustainable devel-
opment involves not only the environmental idea but also a dimension of develop-
ment, existing ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ environmental policy instruments relating to structural
environmental policies need to be modified. Alongside the market and the state, civil
society is an important instrument in achieving sustainable development goals.
Sustainability communication is classified as a ‘soft’ or persuasive instrument
and is one of a number of information and advisory instruments that has gained
popularity in the environmental policy field since the 1980s. Compared to regula-
tory and economic instruments (or so-called ‘hard’ instruments), ‘soft’ instruments
have the great advantage that they are not subject to any special legal control or
cumbersome coordination processes. For example, using community action to influ-
ence the behaviour of individuals can achieve considerable impact. At the same
time involving citizens in the solution of their own problems opens up additional
opportunities for influencing the future in a sustainable way.

References

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology
of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Council on Environmental Quality (1980). The global 2000 report to the president of the U.S.
(Vol. 2, the technical report). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Daly, H. E. (1997). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (Vol. 1: Handlungsrationalität und
gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Vol. 2: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft).
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D.,
Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U., & Zemp, E. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2008). Social marketing: Influencing behaviors for good (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Luhmann, N. (1986). Ökologische Kommunikation. Kann die moderne Gesellschaft sich auf
ökologische Gefährdungen einstellen? Opladen: Leske Budrich.
Mead, G. H. (1934). In C. W. Morris (Ed.), Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Meadows, D., Meadow, D., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for
the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe Books.
Ott, K., & Döring, R. (2008). Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit. Marburg: Metropolis.
WBGU (1998). Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen:
Strategie zur Bewältigung globaler Umweltrisiken. Jahresgutachten 1998. Berlin.
Wildavsky, A. (1993). Vergleichende Untersuchung zur Risikowahrnehmung: Ein Anfang. In
B. Rück (Ed.), Risiko ist ein Konstrukt (pp. 191–211). Munich: Knesebeck.
Wilkinson, A. (1998). Empowerment: Theory and practice. Personal Review, 27(1), 40–56.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ziemann, A. (2007). Kommunikation der Nachhaltigkeit. Eine kommunikationstheoretische
Fundierung. In G. Michelsen & J. Godemann (Eds.), Handbuch Nachhaltigkeitskommunikation.
Grundlagen und Praxis (pp. 123–133). Munich: Oekom.