Advertisement

On Sustaining Sustainability: The Case of Implementing Decisions Based on Policies for a Sustainable Future via Tablets in a Board of a Swedish Housing Corporation

  • Jenny Eriksson LundströmEmail author
  • Mats Edenius
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 20)

Abstract

Catering for sustainability concerns and enterprise mobility for administrations, handheld artifacts of Information and Communication Technology (e.g., tablets and smartphones) are making their way into organizational administration. Often such change is the result of decisions aimed at implementing policies for a more sustainable future, intending to support a shift from paper to digital. For this reason, a deeper understanding of tablets as the means to enable robust and efficient implementation of policies for sustainability is essential. This chapter examines how a decision made by one of the largest municipal boards in Sweden on reducing the use of paper in the municipality was implemented as an introduction of tablets in one of the municipal sub-boards, the board of one of the municipally owned housing corporations (HC), and how the decision prompted changes in the board work setup, raised issues concerning security and privacy of data while yet failing to implement most of the targeted sustainability policies. We adopt the Belief-Action-Outcome framework of Melville (MIS Q 31: 1–21, 2010) as our theoretical lens on how the actual use of the tablets emanates from the social practices of the board, and how the implementation of the sustainability policy of the municipality thus affected the alignment of the board work and the organization’s policies on sustainability. The empirical material consists of interviews and observations in the board of one of the municipally owned housing corporations. The contribution includes an account as to how a decision to implement policies for sustainability via new technology serve as a catalyst to establish and reproduce new setups and practices. However, in order to adopt the new technology, it may also partly or completely reinvent well-established practices without aligning it to the intended policies. Key highlights are the importance for decision makers to consider a broader context and to see the complexity of the practices of the organization, and the role this plays for the implications of making policies on organizational changes sustainable.

Keywords

Information Technology Board Member Sustainability Performance Board Meeting Triple Bottom Line 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adler PA, Adler P (1994) Observation techniques. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 377–392Google Scholar
  2. Bengtsson F, Ågerfalk P (2011) Information technology as a change actant in sustainability innovation: insights from Uppsala. J Strat Inf Syst 20(1):96–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bengtsson F, Eriksson Lundström J, Sjöström S, Hrastinski S, Ozan H (2012) Sustainability impact of open innovation software. In: Proceedings of the XXIII ISPIM conference, action for innovation: innovating from experience, Barcelona, Spain, 17–20 June 2012Google Scholar
  4. Coleman JS (1986) Social theory, social research, and a theory of action. Am J Sociol 91:1309–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Constas MA (1992) Qualitative analysis as a public event: the documentation of category development procedures. Am Educ Res J 29(2):253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Creswell JW (2012) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  7. Dreyfus H, Rabinow P (1983) Michel Foucault: beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  8. Dyllick T, Hockerts K (2002) Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strategy Environ 11:130–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks. Capstone, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Epstein MJ, Roy M-J (2001) Sustainability in action: identifying and measuring the key performance drivers. Long Range Plann 34(5):585–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erdmann L, Lorenz H, Goodman J, Arnfalk P (2004) The future impact of ICTs on environmental sustainability, European Commission Joint Research Centre. ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/eur21384en.pdf. In: Melville NP (2010) Information systems innovation for environmental sustainability. MIS Q 31(1): 1–21
  12. Farrell D, Oppenheim J (2008) The carbon productivity challenge: curbing climate change and sustaining economic growth. McKinsey Global Institute. http://www.fypower.org/pdf/MGI_Carbon_Productivity.pdf. In: Melville NP (2010) Information systems innovation for environmental sustainability. MIS Q 31(1): 1–21
  13. Friedman M (1982) Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. Gherardi S (2010) Telemedicine: a practice-based approach to technology. Hum Relat 63(4):501–524 [Originally published online 8 January 2010]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structure. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  16. Glaser B, Strauss A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. GRI-index (2014) Global Reporting Initiative-index. https://www.globalreporting.org. Accessed 5 Apr 2014
  18. Hanson N (1958) Patterns of discovery: an inquiry into the foundation of science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill S (1995) The social organisation of boards of directors. Br J Sociol 46(2):245–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McNulty T, Pettigrew A (1999) Strategies on the board. Organ Stud 20(1):47–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Melville NP (2010) Information systems innovation for environmental sustainability. MIS Q 31(1):1–21Google Scholar
  22. Myers MD, Young LW (1997) Hidden agendas, power and managerial assumptions in information systems development: an ethnographic study. Inf Technol People 10(3):224–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Orlikowski WJ, Scott SV (2008) Sociomateriality: challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Acad Manage Ann 2(1):433–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Powell WW, di Maggio PJ (eds) (1991) The institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  25. Romm J (2002) The internet and the new energy economy, resources, conservation, and recycling 36(3): 197–210. In: Melville NP (2010) Information systems innovation for environmental sustainability. MIS Q 31(1): 1–21Google Scholar
  26. Ruigrok W, Peck S, Board H (2006) Board characteristics and involvement in strategic decision making: evidence from Swiss companies. J Manage Stud 43(5):1201–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Salzmann O, Steger U, Ionescu-Somer A (2005) The business case for corporate sustainability: literature review and research options. Eur Manage J 23(1):27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schuman H, Johnson MP (1976) Attitudes and behaviour. Annu Rev Sociol 2:161–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sharma S, Henriques I (2005) Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strat Manage J 26:159–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sørensen C, Landau J (2013) We’ve got 99 problems, but a phone ain’t one: mobile ICT and academic agility in information systems research. In: Eseryel YM (ed) IFIP WG 8.2 OASIS workshopGoogle Scholar
  31. Stake RE (1995) The art of case study research. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  32. Strauss A, Corbin JM (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  33. Taylor SJ, Bogdan R (1998) Introduction to qualitative research methods: a guidebook and resource, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. The 1997 Kyoto protocol of United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (2014) https://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php. Accessed 2 Apr 2014
  35. The Paperless Project (2014) http://www.thepaperlessproject.com/. Accessed 13 Mar 2014
  36. Vaast E, Walsham G (2005) Representation and actions: the transformation of work practices with IT us. Inf Organ 15:65–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van Marrewijk M (2003) Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between agency and communion. J Bus Ethics 44(2/3):95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. WCED (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods, 4th edn. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Informatics and MediaUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations