Institutional Change and Green IS: Towards Problem-Driven, Mechanism-Based Explanations

Chapter
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 28)

Abstract

There is growing global unease in relation to the environmental sustainability of business activities, particularly where climate change is concerned. Consequently, the increase in emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) associated with economic growth is identified by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as a problem of grave concern. In the EU, ambitious targets have been set for GHG emissions reductions. Both the OECD and the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI) have identified that between now and 2020 the direct and enabling effects of Green IS could help achieve significant reductions in GHG emissions across all industry sectors. In order to help understand how this objective may be achieved, this chapter presents mechanism-based explanations, which draw on institutional theory and social movement theory, to help explain and predict the adoption, implementation and use of Green IS in organizational fields. Thus, in keeping with extant perspectives in the social sciences, the study eschews the quest for universal laws or general theory, in favour of conceptual mechanism-based explanations of IS phenomena. While environmental sustainability has exercised the interest of researchers in cognate disciplines, Green IS is a new area of interest for IS researchers, hence this chapter’s contribution is timely.

Keywords

Green IS Institutional theory Social movement theory Climate change 

Abbreviations

CDP

Carbon disclosure project

GeSI

Global e-sustainability initiative

GHG

Greenhouse gas

ICT

Information and communication technologies

IEEE

Institute of electrical and electronics engineers

IPCC

Intergovernmental panel on climate change

IS

Information systems

ISO

International standards organisation

IT

Information technology

References

  1. Aplin, J. C., & Hegarty, W. H. (1980). Political influence: Strategies employed by organisations to impact legislation in business and economic matters. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 438–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azad, B., & Faraj, S. (2010). Social power and information technology implementation: A ­contentious framing lens. Information Systems Journal. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2010.00349.x, 1–29.
  3. Baden, D. A., Harwood, I. A., & Woodward, D. G. (2009). The effect of buyer pressure on ­suppliers in SMEs to demonstrate CSR practices: An added incentive or counter productive? European Management Journal, 27(4), 429–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakan, J. (2005). The corporation. London: Constable.Google Scholar
  5. Bala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2007). Assimilation of interorganizational business process standards. Information Systems Research, 18(3), 340–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benders, J., Batenburg, R., & Van Der Blonk, H. (2006). Sticking to standards; technical and other isomorphic pressures in deploying E.R.P.-systems. Information Management, 43(2), 194–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality – A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
  9. Beynon-Davies, P., & Williams, M. D. (2001). Method diffusion as a social movement. In N. L. Russo, B. Fitzgerald, & J. I. DeGross, (Eds.), Realigning research and practice in information systems development: The social and organisational perspective, IFIP TC8/WG8.2 Working Conference, July 27–29, 2001, Boise, Idaho, USA (pp. 257–272). IFIP Conference Proceedings, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  10. Boiral, O. (2007). Corporate greening through ISO 14001: A rational myth? Organization Science, 18(1), 127–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Butler, T., Agerfalk, P., Murugesan, S., Donnellan, B., Capra, E., & Schmidt, N. (2010). Towards a green manifesto for IS research and practice.Google Scholar
  12. Butler, T., Emerson, B., & McGovern, D. (2008). Compliance-as-a-service in IT manufacturing organizations: An exploratory case study. In M. Barrett, E. Davidson, C. Middleton, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information technology in the service economy: Challenges and possibilities for the 21st century (pp. 43–60). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butler, T., & McGovern, D. (2008). The greening of the IT sector: Problems and solutions in ­managing environmental compliance. Cutter IT Journal, 21(2), 19–25.Google Scholar
  14. Butler, T., & McGovern, D. (2009). A conceptual model and IS framework for the design and adoption of environmental compliance management systems. Information Systems Frontiers. doi: 10.1007/s10796-009-9197-5.
  15. Cabinet Office. (2009). Greening government ICT: One year on – A progress report on the government’s greening government ICT strategy. London: HM Government.Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, J. L. (2005). Where do we stand? Common mechanisms in organisations and social movements research. In G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, W. R. Scott, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Social movements and organisation theory (pp. 41–68). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carbon Disclosure Project (2009). Carbon Disclosure Project: FTSE 100 carbon chasm. https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/FTSE_100Carbon_Chasm.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2010.
  19. Carbon Disclosure Project (2010). Carbon Disclosure Project 2010 global 500 report. https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-2010-G500.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2011.
  20. Ceres (2010). 21st century corporation: The ceres roadmap to sustainability. http://www.ceres.org/Page.aspx?pid=592. Accessed 10 Jan 2011.
  21. Chen, A. J. W., Boudreau, M., & Watson, R. T. (2008). Information systems and ecological ­sustainability. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, Sustainability and Information Systems, 10(3), 186–201.Google Scholar
  22. Colazo, J., & Fang, Y. (2009). Impact of license choice on open source software development activity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(5), 997–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Currie, W. (2009). Contextualising the IT artefact: Towards a wider research agenda for IS using institutional theory. Information Technology and People, 22(1), 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davis, G. F., & Marquis, C. (2005). Prospects for organisation theory in the early twenty-first century: Institutional fields and mechanisms. Organisation Science, 16(4), 332–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Davis, G. F., McAdam, D., Scott, W. R., & Zald, M. N. (Eds.). (2005). Social movements and organisation theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 901–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited – Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Doherty, B. (2002). Ideas and action in the green movement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Egels-Zanden, N. (2007). Suppliers’ compliance with MNCs’ codes of conduct: Behind the scenes at Chinese toy suppliers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(1), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eisner, M. A. (2004). Corporate environmentalism, regulatory reform, and industry self-regulation: Toward genuine regulatory reinvention in the United States. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administrations and Institutions, 17(2), 145–167.Google Scholar
  31. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1023/A:1006129603978.
  32. Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. L. (2005). Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Field, A. (2008). What’s your green strategy (pp. 40–44).Google Scholar
  34. Fujistu (2010); 10 January 2011. Green IT: The global benchmark, a report on sustainable it in the USA, UK, Australia and India, Fujitsu Inc. www.au.fujitsu.com. Accessed 10 Jan 2011.
  35. GeSI (2008). SMART 2020: Enabling the low carbon economy in the ­information age, global e-sustainability initiative, available at www.gesi.org//index.php?article_id=205. Accessed 17 Sept 2009.
  36. Ginsberg, J. M., & Bloom, P. N. (2004). Choosing the right green marketing strategy. Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 79–84.Google Scholar
  37. Gosain, S. (2004). Enterprise information systems as objects and carriers of institutional forces: The new iron cage? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(4), 151–182.Google Scholar
  38. Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 30(3), 611–642.Google Scholar
  39. Hart, S. (1997). Beyond greening: Strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard Business Review, 83(3), 66–78.Google Scholar
  40. HBR. (November 2007). Harvard business review on green business strategy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  41. Hedstrom, P. (2005). Dissecting the social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hiatt, S. R., Sine, W. D., & Tolbert, P. S. (2009). From Pabst to Pepsi: The deinstitutionalization of social practices and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 635–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hillman, A. J., Zardkoohi, A., & Bierman, L. (1999). Corporate political strategies and firm ­performance: Indications of firm-specific benefits from personal service in the U.S Government. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hojlo, J., & Jacobson, S. (2008). How to achieve design for environment in discrete manufacturing. In Alert article. Boston: AMR Research Inc. Thursday, May 22, 2008.Google Scholar
  45. Hojsik, M., Harrel, C., & Kruszewska, I. (2008). Greenpeace’s benchmarking of electronics manufacturer’s on their corporate policies on chemicals, energy and producer responsibility for end-of-life products. In H. Reichl, N. F. Nissen, J. Muller, & O. Deubzer (Eds.), Proceedings of the electronics goes green conference 2008+ (pp. 329–334). Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.Google Scholar
  46. Hristev, I. (2006). RoHS and WEEE in the EU and US. European Environmental Law Review, 2(March), Kluwer Law Online, 62–74.Google Scholar
  47. IPCC (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publicaions_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm. Accessed 17 Sept 2009.
  48. Jennings, P., & Zandbergen, P. (1995). Ecologically sustainable organisations. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1015–1052.Google Scholar
  49. Johnston, P. (2008). ICT-based innovation for a low-carbon economy: European challenges and ­policies. In H. Reichl, N. F. Nissen, J. Muller, & O. Deubzer (Eds.), Proceedings of the electronics goes green conference 2008+ (pp. 19–20). Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.Google Scholar
  50. Keen, P. G. W. (1993). Information technology and the management difference: A fusion map. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. King, J. L., Gurbaxani, V., Kraemer, K. K., Mcfarlan, W. F., Raman, K. S., & Yap, C. S. (1994). Institutional factors in information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 5(2), 139–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Klein, H. K., & Hirschheim, R. A. (1989). Legitimation in information systems development’ a social change perspective. Office, Technology and People, 5(1), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kling, R., & Iacono, S. (1996). Computerization movements and tales of technological utopianism. In R. Kling (Ed.), Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social choices (pp. 35–56). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  54. Lamb, R., & Kling, R. (2003). Reconceptualizing users as social actors in information systems research. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(2), 197–235.Google Scholar
  55. Lomborg, B. (2010). Smart solutions to climate change: Comparing costs and benefits. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Lynes, J., & Andrachuk, M. (2008). Motivations for corporate social and environmental responsibility: A case study of Scandinavian airlines. Journal of International Management, 14(4), 377–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McAdam, D., & Scott, W. R. (2005). Organisations and movements. In G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, W. R. Scott, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Social movements and organization theory (pp. 4–40). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. McKinsey. (2007). Reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions: How much at what cost? In Green IT: Corporate strategies. Stockholm: McKinsey & Company.Google Scholar
  60. Melville, N. P. (2010). Information systems innovation for environmental sustainability. Management Information Systems Quarterly., 34(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  61. Mignerat, M., & Rivard, S. (2009). Positioning the institutional perspective in information systems research. Journal of Information Technology: Special Issue on Institutional Theory in Infor­mation, 24(4), 369–391.Google Scholar
  62. Mincer, J. (2007). Why ‘green’ investing has gained focus. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), 249(144), D6.Google Scholar
  63. Murugesan, S. (2008). Can IT go green. Cutter IT Journal, 21(2), 3–5.Google Scholar
  64. Noir, C., & Walsham, G. (2007). The great legitimizer – ICT as myth and ceremony in the Indian healthcare sector. Information Technology & People, 20(4), 313–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. OECD (2008). OECD information technology outlook 2008. http://www.oecd.org/document/20/0,3343,en_2649_34223_41892820_1_1_1_1,00.html#HTO. Accessed 17 Sept 2009.
  66. OECD (2009a). Measuring the relationship between ICT and the environment. Working party on the information economy. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/50/43539507.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2010.
  67. OECD (2009b). Towards green ICT strategies: Assessing policies and programmes on ICT and the environment. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/3/7/44001912.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2010.
  68. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic response to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.Google Scholar
  69. Orlikowski, W. J., & Barley, S. R. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organisations learn from each other. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 25(2), 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Petersen, H., & Vredenburg, H. (2009). Morals or economics? Institutional investor preferences for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2007). US environmental protection agency (EPA) energy star program. Report to congress on server data center and energy efficiency public law, (pp. 109–431) (www.energystar.gov/ia/products/downloads/EPA_Server_Report_Public_Draft_23Apr.pdf). Accessed 18 Sept 2009.
  72. Putnam, H. (1981). The ‘corroboration’ of theories. In I. Hacking (Ed.), Scientific revolutions (pp. 60–79). Oxford: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  73. Rao, H. (2009). Market rebels: How activists make or break radical innovations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Reid, E. M., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). Responding to public and private politics: Corporate dis­closure of climate change policies. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1157–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Research, G. (2007). Gartner symposium/ITxpo 2007: Emerging trends. Stamford: Gartner Inc.Google Scholar
  76. Robey, D., & Boudreau, M. (1999). Accounting for the contradictory organisational consequences of information technology: Theoretical directions and methodological implications. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 167–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ryan, E. J. (2008). Building sustainable IT. Cutter IT Journal, 21(2), 6–12.Google Scholar
  78. Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. (2005). Corporate sustainability. In H. Folmer & T. Tietenberg (Eds.), The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics 2005/2006: A survey of current issues (pp. 185–222). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  79. Schuler, D. A. (1996). Corporate political strategy and foreign competition: The case of the steel industry. Academy of Management, 39(3), 720–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schwab, K. (2008). Global corporate citizenship. Foreign Affairs, 87(1), 107–118.Google Scholar
  81. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  82. Scott, W. R. (2000). Institutional change and healthcare organisations: From professional dominance to managed care. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  83. Scott, W. R. (2004). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (pp. 460–484). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  85. Short, J. L., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Coerced confessions: Self policing in the shadow of the ­regulator. Journal of Law, Economics and Organisation, 24(1), 45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sine, W. D., & David, R. J. (2003). Environmental jolts, institutional change, and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunity in the US electric power industry. Research Policy, 32, 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sine, W. D., & Lee, B. H. (2009). Tilting at windmills? The environmental movement and the emergence of the U.S. wind energy sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 123–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Son, J.-Y., & Benbasat, I. (2007). Organizational buyers’ adoption and use of B2B electronic marketplaces: Efficiency- and legitimacy-oriented perspectives. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), 55–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Standing, C., Sims, I., & Love, P. (2009). IT non-conformity in institutional environments: E-marketplace adoption in the government sector. Information Management, 46(2), 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Stern, N. (2006). Stern review on the economics of climate change (Executive summary). London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
  91. Stiglitz, J. (2010). Freefall: America, free markets, and the sinking of the world economy. UK: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  92. Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003). Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(1), 19–49.Google Scholar
  93. Thornton, D., Gunningham, N., & Kagan, R. A. (2005). General deterrence and corporate environmental behavior. Law and Policy, 27, 262–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M.-C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). and information systems and environmentally sustainable development: Energy informatics and new directions for the IS community. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 34(1), 23–28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Accounting, Finance and Information Systems, College of Business and LawUniversity College CorkCork CityIreland

Personalised recommendations