The Myths of Nature

The excerpt further below is taken from "Steg, L. and I. Sievers (2000). "Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environmental risks." Environment and Behavior 32(2): pp. 250-269."

Thus far, I was quizzed by two people with regards to the importance of Green IT, Green IS, the use of technology for eco-sustainability, the broader issue of climate change and global warming. Apparently, some people are still skeptical about these issues.

Well, as usual, I will share with them my point of view. My stand is this: Out there, there are skeptics (they are the minority by the way). And then, there are the dominant view of those who are the true believers of climate change and global warming. The scientific community, the data and the extreme weather occurrences all over the world provide the facts. And then there are of course people who hold the third view. The view of "precautionary principle". They are generally believers themselves, but at the same time, they are a bit reserved. But they also hold the principle of "WHAT IF ... "  the impact of climate change do happen, as demonstrated through simulations, through actual happenings, etc. And I share this view. This research is interested in .. WHAT IF .. and how technology can be used to influence towards positive impacts and avoid the consequences of the What If It Turns True.

The paper by Steg & Sievers (2000) explains the dispositions, perceptions or habituses of people towards the issue of environmental problems. Beyond the proponents, skeptics and third view, they offer another classification. Based on past studies and based on their own empirical research, discussion surrounding the myths of nature is discussed. And the four myths of nature include:
 

  1. nature capricious (fatalists),
  2. nature perverse/tolerant (hierarchists),
  3. nature benign (individualists), and
  4. nature ephemeral (egalitarians).


Very nice way of bundling eh??? Wish I could do the same ... This paper will certainly offers a lot to the discussion of my data. TQ to my SV for sharing this paper with me. As always, very thankful for having such an amazing SV!

+++


"One does not know all the risks one faces. The nature, the seriousness, and the consequences of most environmental problems—for example, the green-house effect and acid rain—are uncertain. Moreover, there is a lot of discussion in the scientific community regarding the seriousness of environmental problems, the need for managing these risks, and the (type of) measures that should be taken (Roe, 1996). No one knows what will happen if these environmental problems are neglected, and no one always knows how to solve or to prevent these problems. As a consequence, environmental policy as well as the perceived acceptability of this policy is to a large extent based on risk perceptions and risk judgments of various groups of experts and laypersons. Understanding differences in risk perception and risk judgments might facilitate the design of effective environmental risk management strategies.

Different groups in society may evaluate environmental risks differently. Attempts to explain environmental concerns in terms of standard demographic variables have generally not fared well (Jones & Dunlap, 1992). Cultural theory implies that risks are socially constructed; namely, people choose what to fear and how to fear it to sustain their preferred pattern of social relations (Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982). In essence, cultural theory accounts for the social construction of risk in terms of three interlinked domains: (a) the form of social relationships people maintain; (b) cultural biases such as shared values and beliefs including views on human nature, views on society, risk perceptions, and so-called myths of nature, which especially refer to biases toward environmental risks; and (c) preferred behavioral strategies (see Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982; Schwarz & Thompson, 1990; and Thompson, Ellis, & Wildavsky, 1990, for a comprehensive overview of cultural theory). The three domains constitute four systematic different ways of life: fatalists, hierarchists, individualists, and egalitarians."

Myths_of_nature

 

Success story of MNC's Energy Savings Initiative: SAP 2010 CSR Report Boasts US$470M in Energy Savings

The article below is taken from here: http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/03/sap-2010-csr-report-boasts-us470m-energy-savings/

There are so much to learn from SAP's success story.

And I totally agree to Melville's point of view: "More research is needed on HOW firms make the necessary changes to achieve these impacts, to what extent these impacts may be generalizable to firms in other industries, and the aggregate industrial energy impacts." (see http://greeningit.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/more-research-needed/)
 
I hope my own research will contribute in its most little way in understanding how firms make the changes towards a more sustainable future!

SAP 2010 CSR Report Boasts US$470M in Energy Savings

By Leon Kaye | March 28th, 2011

As the global recovery recovers, industries like the enterprise software sector are experiencing renewed growth.  Germany’s SAP, which had total revenues of $17.5 billion in 2010, continues to find success across the various software markets in which it is entrenched.

With SAP’s continued growth around the world comes a surging demand for energy.  SAP has taken volatility in future energy supplies and prices seriously, and considers energy efficiency as crucial to its overall strategy.  Previously SAP’s business performance was closely correlated to its energy consumption.  Doing good years, profits, and energy costs, ticked upward; poor sales were linked closely to a reduced demand for energy to run its offices, data centers, and of course, resulted in its employees flying on fewer flights and commuting to offices less.  SAP’s focus on energy efficiency has reaped impressive results:  a decrease in energy usage and a rise in profits.  With its overall energy consumption decreasing by 9% last year, SAP saved US$470 million in energy costs in 2010.

SAP has shifted from treating energy and emissions as a cost to a profit centerThe company’s managers have taken a holistic view of its energy needs and identified areas of improvement.  SAP set aggressive energy reduction targets, closely evaluated usage across its enterprise operations, and implemented systems that now proactively sends alerts when energy use suddenly spikes anywhere throughout SAP’s global operations.

While SAP scored impressive reductions in total greenhouse gas emissions, data center energy consumption, and total energy consumed between 2009 and 2010, one metric in particular stands out.  Renewable energy now meets 48% SAP’s needs, up from 16% from a year earlier.  Over a third of SAP’s electricity is from hydro; and about 10% is from wind, much of that from the purchase of renewable energy certificates (RECs).  While solar for now provides SAP only a tiny sliver of the firm’s energy, its Waldorf, Germany headquarters and Palo Alto offices generate almost 2200 megawatts of electricity annually.  Look for energy from renewables to increase in coming years, especially when considering the German public’s heightened aversion to nuclear energy.

With energy cost savings accounting for approximately 13% of SAP’s net profits, the company proves that an aggressive energy reduction plan is not only good for the planet, but pays handsome returns for the bottom line.  Nevertheless SAP’s effects reach far beyond its operations, as it has worked with many high-profile clients, from Valero in Texas to Cemig in Brazil, to reduce their energy consumption and spending. ((HOW TM CAN LEVERAGE ON OUR ERP FROM SAP??))

Overall SAP is a strong CSR model:  the firm contributes to communities through several means, including volunteering, the donation of IT solutions, and social investment.  Its adherence to Global Reporting Initiative’s guidelines reveals rigorous disclosure, only dismissing sections that are not the result of its core business.  For companies determined to lower their energy consumption, however, SAP is a shining case study in corporate social responsibility, and has set the bar high for large multinational firms to follow.

Leon Kaye is the Editor of GreenGoPost.com; you can follow him on Twitter.

Queen's English and American's English

The correct spelling for UK English and American English .. sometimes very confusing.

The King Canute of Spelling?

(From The Pegasus NLP Newsletter  – 22 August 2000)

King Canute is reputed to have had his throne placed on the beach so he could sit and command the tide not to come in. It did, of course, and he and his throne began to get wet.

The story is often use as an example of somebody trying to do the impossible. It's usually wrongly quoted, incidentally.

In some respects my attempts to maintain a distinction between English and American is as doomed to failure. And provokes occasional comments.

The latest of these came after yesterday's article on Crazy Thinking. It was a very pleasant and courteous email and included a request that I use a spell-checker! I do use one – and it checks against the commonly accepted English as used in England.

Because of the amount of American-produced software, incorporating American spell-checkers, it is becoming almost the norm to spell in American.

Microsoft has played no small part in this. Their software, even when sold in the UK and Ireland, features spell-checkers which seem to have a habit of reverting their default to American even when set to what they call “English (UK)”.

There is a further challenge. A lot of English software now features American spelling, too. Either because it is aimed at the American, and much larger, market or because the people who wrote the software have been using American spell-checkers for so long that they can no longer spell in English.

My sister visited recently and on reading something I had written pointed out that I had incorrectly spelt 'programme'. In her mind it should be spelt 'program'. Where she works computers are workhorses and the staff are not interested in tweaking and customising(!) the programmes. Subtleties like  changing the defaults are ignored. As a result she and her colleagues have been using American spell-checkers for so long they think the American way is correct for this part of the world (England and Ireland)!

So, really, a chap has to take a stand somewhere, doesn't he!

I've had a look through some recent newsletters and switched between American and English spellings to get a list of some common differences between the two “languages” (as they are rapidly becoming!) I then used an English dictionary – a real old-fashioned paper one rather than a software one, just in case… And I came up with the following:

 

English SpellingAmerican Spelling
recogniserecognize (sometimes Eng. too)
behaviourbehavior
recognisingrecognizing (sometimes Eng. too)
paralyseparalyze
generalisationsgeneralizations (sometimes Eng. too)
labellinglabeling
analyseanalyze
programmeprogram
hypoglycaemiahypoglycemia
travellingtraveling
revitaliserevitalize (sometimes Eng. too)
practise (the verb) 

practice (Am. both

verb and noun!)

apologisingapologizing (sometimes Eng. too)
defencedefense
channelledchanelled
finalisedfinalized (sometimes Eng. too)

 

Now for a lovely one…

English American
fulfilfulfill
fulfilling fulfiling
fulfilmentfulfillment
fulfiller fulfiler

 

So we sometimes have two 'l's' in English and one in American...  

But, other times, we have one in English and two in American.  Got it?  Easy isn't it…!

All of which goes to show what a pointless exercise it is becoming to try and get it 'right'!  

English is a living and dynamic language – and is becoming the standard on the Web. And there are more Americans using the Web than English, more American products available, and more non-English speakers using American products to learn English.

English as some of us Europeans have known it may not have long to go. Yet I'm sitting here in my chair ranting at the world to stop and do it my way. Rather like King Canute is supposed to have been doing. And as long as I, and others, don't take it too seriously it's a harmless little exercise.

It's like a lot of things in life. As long as we do not lose sight of the big picture that's fine. The big picture is what is really important to me or you at any moment. The big picture of the web site and of the newsletter is to make available a few ideas, tips, and insights that I have come across and have found helpful for myself and when coaching others.

(So what about old Canute? Well, he was not trying to stop the tide from coming in. He was a lot wiser than that. He wanted to demonstrate to his over-demanding subjects that even the king was not omnipotent. That's what he intended. But along the way, over the centuries, people forgot what his big picture was – they missed his point.)

I really enjoy hearing about peoples views on the information in the newsletter and web site. And, especially, their experiences in applying the ideas. 

So do kepe your coments roling in, pleeze…

Reg Connolly  

 

from: http://www.pe2000.com/canute_spelling.htm

 

The Role of ERP in Green Supply Chain: A Catalyst for Change?

My SV shared this article with me. As the company I am studying is indeed using EPR/SAP, I should keep my eyes open and start asking questions related to how their ERP implementation plays its role as a catalyst for green change.



Green Supply Chain Growth a Catalyst for Change

Earlier this year, IFS North America conducted a study among manufacturing executives to find out how many of them are currently a part of a green supply chain. It turns out that about 77 percent of them were. Most of the rest expect to be a part of a green supply chain in the next few years.

So what is a green supply chain, and why are so many manufacturers finding themselves part of one? A green supply chain takes into consideration not just financial cost of goods purchased from supply chain partners, but also the environmental footprint of the traditional supply chain with raw material supply, manufacturing and distribution -- directly to a customer or through channels of distribution. Also taken into account are hazardous goods, consumption of natural resources like water, discharges to the atmosphere and other environmental impacts not only during product manufacture but over the product lifecycle through disposal and recycling.

The growth of green supply chains brings real challenges to manufacturing and other industry. But I think this is tremendously good news, and I'll tell you why.

Every day in the news, we can see dramatic pictures and statistics about new weather conditions and environmental challenges. And each of us, in our first-hand experience, notice new temperature extremes and other severe weather patterns. We all find ourselves wondering; "What is happening in the world, and how will it affect me and my family."

That is why these survey results are so positive. Respondents included executives at more than 200 manufacturing companies with revenues of more than 100 million dollars. Overwhelmingly, they say environmental considerations are becoming more important in sourcing and purchasing decisions. They claim to either report environmental data to their customers or ask their vendors to share environmental data with them.

Another cause for optimism has to do with the drivers or reasons these companies cite for their green initiatives. The study shows regulations are not the primary reason for manufacturers to green their supply chain or document their environmental footprint. The two most frequently reported reasons for green initiatives involved a sense of social responsibility and internal management directives. Customer demand was a close third, and regulatory pressure lagged far behind. I think it is a very positive development that private sector demand from the customers and manufacturers' own good intentions are a much more important factor than government regulations.

figure 1
click image for full-sized version

The Role of Technology

This focus on the green supply chain, like all sea changes and major economic shifts, brings with it real and documentable challenges. Suddenly, accounting, IT, sales and other departments are responsible for handling a new type of data … environmental impact data. The easiest way to describe the impact this has on the technology and software that underpins a modern enterprise is to share the vision we have for our own offering. We feel it is necessary to enable businesses to monitor and manage environmental aspects as an integrated perspective in their decision making and communication at all levels.

What do you need to measure and manage from an environmental perspective within your business? That may depend on your particular company, your industry, and the priorities you and your customers set. Obviously, in an automotive industry, lifecycle environmental impact of the product, including fuel consumption, emissions and end of life impacts, may be important. In electronics power consumption, reliance of the supply chain on environmentally troublesome heavy metals and other factors could be priorities.

As we work with IFS customers, we see the need for an embedded Eco-Footprint Management module in the enterprise resource planning (ERP) products manufacturers and other companies use to run their businesses. There are a number of reasons for this;

• Embedding environmental measurement and management in ERP is most cost-effective and efficient since most of the data needed already exist and can be re-used;
• An integrated, enterprise-wide approach handles environmental impact across the entire product lifecycle and the entire supply chain;
• Harnessing the power of ERP allocates environmental impact on the product level and allows aggregation to higher levels in a product structure;
• Using ERP ensures that all transactional and environmental data can then easily and confidently be used for compliance, disclosure and decision support.

The Role of ERP

It quickly becomes clear that the depth and breadth of information required to track an environmental footprint is substantial. To simply ensure compliance with environmental regulations like Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) and customer-driven reporting requirements requires deep integration between supply chain management, contract management, bills of materials and routings, multi-site/intercompany transactions and other enterprise functionality. This data resides within ERP, so ERP is the natural place to handle environmental management functionality.

Moreover, the responsibility for overseeing and managing the environmental footprint must be not on administrative staff but on line managers. Only the executive responsible for managing profit and loss can use this data to balance environmental and financial advantage. Environmental key performance indicators (KPIs) must be analyzed alongside KPIs having to do with business performance. This is one more reason environmental footprint management needs to be embedded in ERP, which is the platform used by senior executives to manage the broad spectrum of metrics that assure business success.

While manufacturers might look at third-party products that purport to offer some degree of environmental management functionality on specific data points such as carbon production or energy consumption, these point solutions are not capable of managing the entirety of the environmental footprint nor flexible enough to adjust to changing customer and market demands. Moreover, the broad number of integration points will make it very messy if not impractical to get these "bolt on" applications to integrate well with ERP. Moreover, these integrations are subject to the drawbacks of all integration projects. The integration is not stable because the ERP product and the third-party environmental package are not on the same release schedule. This adds increased cost each time either product is upgraded to a new version.

Instead, it probably makes sense for a manufacturer to look at whether their central ERP package carries enough information about each of the components that they buy or manufacture to help them towards their initial environmental reporting or decision support goals. A next level of sophistication is an ERP product with environmental footprint tracking tool already embedded in the package. This delivers a level of futureproofing and simplicity that will become more and more in demand in the market as manufacturers continue to document their impact on the environment.

The green supply chain trend is good for the environment. It will also be good for manufacturers who embrace it and leverage the right technology to document their environmental footprints for customers and the market.

++

Martin Gunnarsson is director at IFS AB, formulating future product directions and strategies for the global ERP vendor’s application suite, IFS Applications.

++

From: http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2011/04/05/green-supply-chain-growth-catalyst-change?page=full

Interested to become a solar energy producer?

Finally, households in Malaysia would be able to produce the excess solar energy captured and sell it back to the national energy provider. If economies of scale  could be achieved, I trust we don't need to go the alternative way of producing energy by having nuclear reactor in our country, ever!


The Star Online > Business

Higher income for home solar energy

PETALING JAYA: Residential homes which produce solar energy under the Renewable Energy (RE) Act 2010 will be paid more than industrial producers but the cost of setting up solar panels in homes will be higher due to the lack of economies of scale.

Under the RE Act 2010, a small-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) producer, meaning a household, could potentially earn up to RM1.75 per kWh of electricity produced by selling the power to Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB).

Consumers who installed capacity up to and including 4 kWp (kilowatt peak) would be paid a feed-in-tariff (FiT) of RM1.23 per kWh, said Energy, Green Technology and Water Ministry's RE/Malaysia Building Integrated Photovoltaic Technology Application (MBIPV) national project team leader and chief technical adviser Ahmad Hadri Haris.

Ahmad Hadri Haris says the responses received from the industry so far have been very good.

“However, with the bonus criteria such as installation of solar PV in buildings or building structures, they will be paid an additional 26 sen on top of the RM1.23 per kWh,” he told StarBizWeek.

Consumers who installed solar PV for use as building materials will get an additional 25 sen and they will also get another three sen for using locally manufactured or assembled solar photovoltaic modules.

Meanwhile, for producers generating above 4 kWp of solar PV electricity, and up to and including 24 kWp, will be paid RM1.20.

A solar farm producing capacity above 1 MWp, and up to and including 10 MWp, will be paid 95 sen only.

Ahmad said the lower FiT for large-scale producers was due to the “economies of scale” they received, given their bigger production compared with that from those singular solar panels from a normal household.

“We make it fair for all to make equal returns and give opportunities for all to participate in this scheme. The FiT varies depending on the production capacity,” he said.

Ahmad said the cost to produce a 1KW of solar electricity would be about RM15,000 but 1MW might only cost RM10mil instead of RM15mil due to economies of scale.

“We recognise the higher set-up cost for smaller producers, thus we give a higher FiT to enable them to recover and earn some money,” he said.

Some are saying that the FiT is not commercially viable for people to start investing in solar PV.

“Nothing is perfect but it is a good start. The responses that we received from the industry so far are very good,” Ahmad said.

He said all solar PV producers would be guaranteed an income for up to 21 years from the date of signing the agreement.

“Consumers producing 4KW of electricity at home will be earning more than RM400 a month. It will be a secondary income generator,” Ahmad said, adding that the current practice was “net metering” for electricity generated from solar PV, whereby TNB would deduct the production from consumers' consumption on a contra basis.

Ahmad said there was also an initial annual degression rate of 8%, and technology would become cheaper progressively.

From: http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/4/9/business/8439512&sec=business

The so-called "green" bottle

Screen-capture-14


Picture from: http://www.polandspring.com/DoingOurPart/EcoShapeBottle.aspx

An "eco-shape" bottle .. uses less plastic (up to 30% lesser) and also produced fewer CO2 emissions in manufacturing the bottle. Refer here

It is suggested that there are opportunities to innovate and find profit in reducing CO2 emissions.

While this is no Green IS/Green IT .. but something align well with the spirit of working towards a more sustainable future of mankind.

Green IS as practice instance

My kind SV shared with me the following article originally from here.

IBM Applies Green IT to Help Bank of China Cut Paper Use by 95%

Published January 26, 2011

ARMONK, NY — Through a combination of software solutions and streamlining systems, IBM has helped the Bank of China's London operations cut their paper requirements from 50 pounds per day to roughly 2.5 pounds per day. (( me --> better environmental performance through use of Green IS))

At the same time, IBM was able to improve the efficiency of how the bank's employees conducted their financial transactions. (( me --> better economic/financial performance))

IBM helped the bank achieve this success with a combination of its Informix and Centric iSolutions sofware programs; the paper reductions were implemented by cutting down on the roughly 3,000 messages that the Bank of China sent between branches every day; each of which needed to be manually printed and distributed. (( me --> this is where the practice part enabled by Green IS by the actors/people at BoCL emerge. BUT .. question to ponder: is it as easy as reported in the article to make this as an established practice by the industrious people at the BoCL? how does this practice emerge? is there any green culture already embedded in the mind and behaviour of the organisation prior to this (their so call "green" historical trajectory)? what are types of supports given by the people in power to see this practice happen and fruitful?  how do people in BoCL accept this behaviour? are they being influenced by their  past like their upbringing, socialisation, formal education, training, norms and values, etc?? how do their perception on climate change, eco-sustainability and what they do in their daily job influence their practice at their workplace (or at home)??))

By swapping out paper messages with electronic communications, employees are able to monitor the messages as they're sent and received, improving the reliability and efficiency of the system. (( me --> this is the practice bit and the overall outcome. BUT .. how do they religiously track, measure and reevaluate upon these outcomes?))

"The improved access to information has been key in helping us meet compliance regulations and reduce costs," Stephen Hinds, COO of Bank of China's London branch and subsidiary, said in a statement. "IBM and Centric iSolutions have been instrumental in helping us stay ahead to more efficiently manage an increasing number of interbank transactions and monitor business process activity across multiple departments." (( me --> external and internal factors driving this practice -- for regulatory compliance and for economic reasons))

IBM has of course been dramatically expanding the type of business operations it focuses on, adapting its business along with the overall shift of IT as a stand-alone department in a company to IT as a core facilitator of every part of a business. In recent months, the company has partnered with Schneider Electric on building energy efficiency, expanded its water management projects around the globe, and of course continued its work in greening traditional IT areas, such as with its LEED-certified data center in North Carolina.

All this has added up to big successes for IBM; the company was proudly touting its recent quarterly financials, which show a company generating over $9 billion in profit in 2010, a more than 10 percent growth over the previous year.

Note:

We define and focus our Green IS view more towards the use of Information Systems (i.e software itself or software-assisted practices) for eco-sustainability.

The increasing practice of using software to monitor sustainability performance --> a perfect Green IS-as-practice example

I first read this from Nigel's amazing Green IS blog. The original source is here.

It is a useful piece of info for my research .. the practice of organisational use of software for eco-sustainability is what I am interested in.

Will get back to this soon ...

50% rise in companies using software to monitor sustainability performance, says new survey




The proportion of companies that use software to monitor their sustainability performance increased by 50 percent between 2006 and 2010, according to the results of a new international survey released today, Thursday 27 January 2011, by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).

Experts from GRI say this means that guidance for people producing sustainability reports should be kept up to date with emerging trends in software use and digital reporting.

GRI provides the world’s most widely-used framework for producing sustainability reports. The Sustainability Reporting Framework lets large and small companies, non-profit organizations and government bodies worldwide assess their sustainability performance and report on the results. Transparency through reporting on economic, environmental, social and governance factors drives the sustainability of individual organizations and, ultimately, the global economy. GRI’s key goal is to make sustainability reporting a mainstream practice.

There are many software options for a company wanting to produce a sustainability report, from developing tools in-house to purchasing software designed by providers. The results of the new survey emphasize the importance of software to companies that want to report on their sustainability performance. This confirms the need for GRI to check the legitimacy and accuracy of content from the GRI Guidelines used in software.

The new survey includes information about 99 companies and other organizations globally that registered at least one sustainability report with GRI between 2006 and 2010. The results of the survey show an increase in sustainability reporting within the sample, with 61 percent (61) of companies producing reports in 2006, rising to 94 percent (93) in 2009.

Companies that produce reports on their sustainability performance are increasingly reliant on software. This highlights the need for guidance like the GRI Sustainability Reporting Framework to remain relevant in today’s digital world, and accessible in digital formats. 64 out of the 99 people who responded to the survey produced a sustainability report in 2006, and 21 of those companies used software to produce their reports. In 2010, 44 of 89 organizations are using software.

GRI supports organizations that use software to produce their sustainability reports by checking software that contains content from the GRI Sustainability Reporting Framework. GRI’s Certified Software & Tools Program ensures that all software that includes GRI content uses it correctly. There are currently five software programs certified by GRI, produced by Microsoft, SAP, PE International, S2D2 and EnviroCIP.

Nelmara Arbex, Deputy Chief Executive of the Global Reporting Initiative, said: “Today’s survey brings to light an interesting trend in reporting, and confirms the rise in the use of software and digital reporting tools that we expected. By checking the use of GRI content in these tools, we can ensure that companies producing their sustainability reports know the tool they are using applies GRI content in an accurate way.

“The next generation of the GRI Guidelines will address the issue of software and digital applications in sustainability reporting, with information and Indicators that can be used electronically. This kind of application will also encourage more companies to report in the future, helping us on the path to a sustainable economy,” added Nelmara Arbex.

The survey team contacted 856 companies that produced at least one sustainability report using the GRI Guidelines between 2006 and 2010. These companies feature on the GRI Reports List, which includes sustainability reports based on the GRI Guidelines that GRI is aware of. 99 people responded within the two week survey time.

-Ends-

Dimensions of environmental values (to keep eyes opened) in the "green" field for eco-sustainability practices

From: Kagan, R. A., N. Gunningham, et al. (2003). "Explaining corporate environmental performance: How does regulation matter?" Law and Society Review 37(1): 51-90+1. (p. 57)

... We based our assessment of each mill’s ‘‘environmental management style’’ on (1) managers’ ‘‘expressed attitudes’’ toward environmental problems, (2) managers’ actions and implementa- tion efforts to meet specific economic, regulatory, and community challenges, and (3) their explanations for those actions.

We relied on our interview data to score each firm on three related dimensions of commitment to environmental values:

  1. the intensity of managerial scanning for environmentally relevant information, including the search for ‘‘win-win’’ expenditures identified as both environmentally good and economically desirable for the firm; >> my take: this practice (scanning for env. relevant info) might be useful for my study in understanding how the green culture is becoming more prevalent in the studied organisation. 
  2. the management’s degree of responsiveness to environmentally relevant information, including demands from regulators, customers, neighbors, and environmental activists; >> my take: the responsiveness of the management (could be influenced by their own dispositions/habitus toward eco-sustainability) is also useful to understand how green culture is shaped and emerged into a more prevalent green field, and into the practice of Green IS in the organisation. 
  3. the assiduousness with which the facility had institutionalized implementing routines to ensure high levels of environmental consciousness and control capacity (including activities such as self-auditing, employee training, and close integration of environmental and production-oriented training and decision making). >> my take: this is also relevant as the institutionalisation of Green IS as practice can only emerge as a function of the assiduous effort by the whole organisation across all levels, horizontal and vertical in recognising, taking action (using on frequent basis) and eventually institutionalising Green IS practice for eco-sustainability. However, the dynamic interactions among agents in the field, the resources (capital) available to them, their habituses, surrendering to certain symbolic violence, the influence of dominant and dominating power relations all come into play in making the practice to come to being must be understood as well. One thing for sure, the phenomenon is expected to be very COMPLEX AND HARD TO GRASP!

We sought to increase the validity of our assessment of each firm on these dimensions by coding the qualitative data separately so that all three members of our research team agreed on the same characterization of the firm’s environmental management style.

Selecting the right methodology to study corporate environmental performance and practice is not an easy task

The survey methodology is weakened by relatively low response rates (which makes the sample less representative), by the inability of researchers to probe general responses for concrete details and other supportive evidence, and by the noncomparability of the respondents’ different industrial and ecological contexts. The in-depth case studies of one or a few firms are more reliable, but are weaker in explanatory power and external validity. The large majority are also highly selective, being ‘‘success stories’’ that provide insights but from which it would be very dangerous to generalize. Moreover, they are not capable of explaining variation between firms--our key research challenge.  (p. 53)

Verbatim from:

Kagan, R. A., N. Gunningham, et al. (2003). "Explaining corporate environmental performance: How does regulation matter?" Law and Society Review 37(1): 51-90+1.