The Greening of IT: How discourse informs IT sustainability innovation Elizabeth Davidson Shidler College of Business University of Hawaii Honolulu, HI 96822 edavidso@hawaii.edu Emmanuelle Vaast College of Business McGill University Montreal, Quebec Canada Emmanuelle.Vaast@gmail.com Ping Wang College of Information Studies University of Maryland College Park, Maryland pwang@umd.edu Abstract— We review three sociological theories of technology innovation and diffusion, which highlight the importance of discourses on the social shaping and trajectory of IT innovations. We consider how key concepts of each theory are applicable to understanding Green IT as an area of innovation. We highlight how these theories might inform action in this innovation movement to help guide the collective actions of participants in Green IT and areas of research on Green IT discourses that may prove beneficial. Green IT, Computerization Movement, Organizing Vision, Innovation I. INTRODUCTION The Information Technology (IT) field (broadly defined) has become increasingly interested in how information technologies are impacted by and impact sustainability [7, 11, 18, 19, 23, 38]. The term “Green IT” is now a well- recognized buzzword [2] although what “green IT” actually entails is far from clear [4, 21]. Major IT producers have taken up the challenge of considering their own impact on sustainability and are positioning themselves to benefit from an association with Green IT through public good will and through offering service and product offerings [24, 29]. Academics, through research, conferences and publications, are rapidly joining this field [4, 7, 13, 21, 23, 28] as analysts, consultants and industry observers. As Green IT becomes a widely heralded topic, are associated innovations likely to gain a significant following and to lead to meaningful improvements in economic and environmental sustainability? We suggest that understanding discursive processes that underlie the burgeoning movement for Green IT will help stakeholders who are engaged in developing or promoting innovations to plan and carry out effective actions. In this paper, we outline three areas of sociological theory (computerization movements, organizing visions, and collective action), which have developed through research on the interaction between discourse and innovation. We consider how these theories are synergistic and highlight their relevance to Green IT innovations. We suggest research questions on the Green IT movement that these theories point to and discuss how such research might contribute to the development, promotion and implementation of effective Green IT innovations. II. DISCOURSE AND IT INNOVATION The theories we consider in this paper are part of a field of social science known as the social construction of technology, or SCOT [5]. A key assumption is that technology innovations cannot be fully understood without accounting for the social context of their development and use [25]. SCOT theories presume that technologies do not determine human action, but instead, they are designed artifacts of human agency and thus are shaped by (and shape) social, political and discursive processes. The theories we discuss here focus analytic attention on how discourses shape technologies, particularly in the early stages of innovation, as ideas about possible uses and consequences of a new technology are debated and shared understandings may emerge [20, 34]. A. Computerization Movements Kling and Iacono [22, p. 228-9] define a computerization movement as “a kind of movement whose advocates focus on computer-based systems as instruments to bring about a new social order … based upon collaborations of participants with diverse interests.” A computerization movement relies on broad claims about the social value of computerization, such as improved efficiencies, communication, and even democracy and generally is utopian regarding the inevitable positive outcomes of computerization [14, 43]. The concept of a computerization movement draws from theories on discursive processes in social movements. Benford [3, p. 615] explicates how adherents of a social movement “negotiate a shared understanding of some