@InCollection{Lippert.I:2022Promissory,
  author    = {Lippert, Ingmar},
  booktitle = {Elgar Handbook of Critical Environmental Politics},
  publisher = {Edward Elgar},
  title     = {Promissory Infrastructures for Environmental Politics},
  year      = {2022},
  chapter   = {42},
  editor    = {Luigi Pellizzoni and Emanuele Leonardi and Viviana Asara},
  note      = {invited contribution},
  doi       = {10.31219/osf.io/ujdx8},
  subtitle  = {The Power of Digitalisation and its Stabilisation of Capitalist and (Un)Sustainable Developments},
  timestamp = {2020-12-17 10:57},
  url_osf   = {https://osf.io/ujdx8/},
}

@InCollection{Lippert2020InWithOfSTS,
  author           = {Lippert, Ingmar},
  booktitle        = {Wie forschen mit den 'Science and Technology Studies'? Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven},
  publisher        = {Transcript Verlag},
  title            = {In, with and of STS},
  year             = {2020},
  editor           = {Astrid Wiedmann and Katherin Wagenknecht and Philipp Goll and Andreas Wagenknecht},
  isbn             = {978-3-8376-4379-4},
  pages            = {301--318},
  series           = {Locating Media/Situierte Medien},
  abstract         = {How do we narrate about how we ‘use’ STS for social scientific research? How do we study STS research practices? Do all research practices that involve STS concepts contribute to STS? This text constitutes the afterword to an edited volume that contributes to providing answers in the borderlands of these questions. The af­terword problematises how we perform reflexivity, how we are (not) analysing STS's own research practices, and how we tell simultaneous stories of what STS as a field is or might be. With this problematisation, this essay argues for a praxeography of STS, involving methodographic, conceptographic and cartographic analyses.},
  doi              = {10/fdws},
  ean              = {9783837643794},
  location         = {Bielefeld},
  timestamp        = {2020-11-06 10:24},
  url_publisher    = {https://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-4379-4/},
  url_researchgate = {https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341427010},
}

How do we narrate about how we ‘use’ STS for social scientific research? How do we study STS research practices? Do all research practices that involve STS concepts contribute to STS? This text constitutes the afterword to an edited volume that contributes to providing answers in the borderlands of these questions. The af­terword problematises how we perform reflexivity, how we are (not) analysing STS's own research practices, and how we tell simultaneous stories of what STS as a field is or might be. With this problematisation, this essay argues for a praxeography of STS, involving methodographic, conceptographic and cartographic analyses.

@InCollection{Lippert2017Socialemissions?Corporatecarbonfootprintingastechno-politicalpractice,
  author           = {Ingmar Lippert},
  booktitle        = {The Carbon Fix},
  title            = {Corporate Carbon Footprinting as Techno-Political Practice},
  booksubtitle     = {Forest Carbon, Social Justice, and Environmental Governance},
  chapter          = {6},
  editor           = {Shirley Fiske and Stephanie Paladino},
  isbn             = {978-1-61132-333-7},
  location         = {New York, London},
  pages            = {107--118},
  publisher        = {Routledge},
  abstract         = {Attempting to tackle climate change with market solutions hinges on the existence of emissions. We know much about the politics of undoing emissions via offsets (e.g., Böhm and Dabhi 2009). But where do emissions come from? How are they done? Carbon footprinting seems to be the simple answer. Is this merely a technical matter? In this chapter I explore how emissions come into being; carbon accounting emerges as techno-political practice, fraught with non-transparency.},
  timestamp        = {2020-06-19 21:26},
  url_academia.edu = {https://www.academia.edu/28540367/},
  url_publisher    = {https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781315474014/chapters/10.4324/9781315474014-18},
  year             = {2017},
}

Attempting to tackle climate change with market solutions hinges on the existence of emissions. We know much about the politics of undoing emissions via offsets (e.g., Böhm and Dabhi 2009). But where do emissions come from? How are they done? Carbon footprinting seems to be the simple answer. Is this merely a technical matter? In this chapter I explore how emissions come into being; carbon accounting emerges as techno-political practice, fraught with non-transparency.

@InCollection{Lippert:2013Not,
  author    = {Ingmar Lippert},
  booktitle = {Yearbook 2012 of the Institute for Advanced Studies on Science, Technology and Society},
  title     = {Latour's Gaia -- Not down to Earth?},
  doi       = {10/bbnb},
  editor    = {Arno Bamm\'{e} and G\"{u}nter Getzinger and Thomas Berger},
  location  = {Wien and M\"{u}nchen},
  pages     = {91--111},
  publisher = {Profil},
  subtitle  = {Social Studies of Environmental Management for Grounded Understandings of the Politics of Human-Nature Relationships},
  abstract  = {In a recent instantiation by Bruno Latour of how STS can engage with matters of concern, he conceptualised a changing relationship by humans with earth. For Latour, scientists' notion ‘anthropocene’ illustrates that humans accept that their industrial activities are not merely causing some surface environmental problems but that they establish a geological force. He proposes: inside each of us, we have to struggle for properly engaging with Gaia (Lovelock). Questioning his individualist take, this paper reviews STS studies on how humans and societies enact the imagery of ‘being able to manage’ (environments). We find conflict. I argue, studying the doing of so-called environmental management shows that by this activity environments are not merely known, but also enacted. This move implies that competing of enactments of the subjection of environments to management are possible. Consequently, the performative qualities of environmental management emerge as a fundamentally politically and ethically relevant object of study.},
  timestamp = {2020-06-19 20:49},
  year      = {2014},
}

In a recent instantiation by Bruno Latour of how STS can engage with matters of concern, he conceptualised a changing relationship by humans with earth. For Latour, scientists' notion ‘anthropocene’ illustrates that humans accept that their industrial activities are not merely causing some surface environmental problems but that they establish a geological force. He proposes: inside each of us, we have to struggle for properly engaging with Gaia (Lovelock). Questioning his individualist take, this paper reviews STS studies on how humans and societies enact the imagery of ‘being able to manage’ (environments). We find conflict. I argue, studying the doing of so-called environmental management shows that by this activity environments are not merely known, but also enacted. This move implies that competing of enactments of the subjection of environments to management are possible. Consequently, the performative qualities of environmental management emerge as a fundamentally politically and ethically relevant object of study.

@InCollection{Lippert:2010,
  author           = {Ingmar Lippert},
  booktitle        = {{Implementing Environmental and Resource Management}},
  publisher        = {Springer},
  title            = {Sustaining Waste -- Sociological Perspectives on Recycling a Hybrid Object},
  year             = {2011},
  address          = {Heidelberg},
  chapter          = {22},
  editor           = {Schmidt, M. and Onyango, V. and Palekhov, D.},
  pages            = {283--306},
  abstract         = {Recycling is a concept, normally, taken-for-granted within academic approaches to environmental management. The science of recycling usually addresses recycling as an activity which needs optimising, rather than questioning. My take on recycling differs from the standard one: I focus on possibilities to conceptualise an agent who was responsible for implementing a recycling scheme for her organisation. By way of drawing on sociological theories (especially Bourdieu's theory of practice and Actor-network theory) I point to significant problems in approaching sustainability. The empirical data consists of ethnographic field work which illustrates societal implications for thinking about transforming organisations towards sustainable conduct: By constructing a recycling scheme the waste manager of the organisation ensures that the organisation does not move towards reducing or altering resource consumption. Rather, she stabilises an unsustainable trajectory and inhibits societal transformation even beyond her organisation. Thus, sociological theory allows problematising and better grasping the societal implications and limits of environmental management.},
  doi              = {10/dvw8cr},
  keywords         = {ecological modernisation, recycling, environmental management, agency},
  timestamp        = {2020-06-25 22:34},
  url_academia.edu = {https://www.academia.edu/1064084/},
}

Recycling is a concept, normally, taken-for-granted within academic approaches to environmental management. The science of recycling usually addresses recycling as an activity which needs optimising, rather than questioning. My take on recycling differs from the standard one: I focus on possibilities to conceptualise an agent who was responsible for implementing a recycling scheme for her organisation. By way of drawing on sociological theories (especially Bourdieu's theory of practice and Actor-network theory) I point to significant problems in approaching sustainability. The empirical data consists of ethnographic field work which illustrates societal implications for thinking about transforming organisations towards sustainable conduct: By constructing a recycling scheme the waste manager of the organisation ensures that the organisation does not move towards reducing or altering resource consumption. Rather, she stabilises an unsustainable trajectory and inhibits societal transformation even beyond her organisation. Thus, sociological theory allows problematising and better grasping the societal implications and limits of environmental management.

@InCollection{Lippert:2010b,
  author           = {Ingmar Lippert},
  booktitle        = {Implementing Environmental and Resource Management},
  publisher        = {Springer},
  title            = {Knowledge for Corporate Energy Management -- Structural Contradictions and Hope for Change?},
  year             = {2011},
  address          = {Heidelberg},
  chapter          = {18},
  editor           = {Schmidt, M. and Onyango, V. and Palekhov, D.},
  pages            = {211--228},
  abstract         = {At the latest since the global oil crises between 1970 and 1980 "energy" has been continuously a topic in Western discourses of environmental and technology politics. Potential for innovation in the private sector is considered significant to put into practice environmental protection goals. Implicit to the aims of energy efficiency and to safe energy are the presence of actors who support corporations in reaching these aims. These agents of ecological modernisation, i.e. environmental managers, and their practices have rarely been scrutinised. This paper, therefore, aims to make them the object of enquiry -- approached from a Science and Technology Studies perspective. This article studies the knowledge politics implications of techno-economic decision-making by such an actor within the energy management at a site of a multinational corporation. Based on ethnographic research at the site the article focuses on an instance of a management tool, corporate suggestion schemes, to mobilise workers' ideas of improving the environmental performance. With this it becomes possible to attend to how corporate agents of ecological modernisation deal with the issue "energy". Prior research focused on other aspects, but not on the actor. We find that the manager uses specific forms of knowledge -- adequate to the discourse of ecological modernisation -- while, however, sidelining alternative forms. Thus, the latter are lost to sustainable development. We conclude, that the actors' knowledge practice renders corporate energy management unsustainable. To conceptualise a way out of this dilemma the article draws on theories of grounded utopias.},
  doi              = {10/fcf9d8},
  keywords         = {ecological modernisation, knowledge management, knowledge infrastructure, energy management, corporate environmental management},
  timestamp        = {2020-06-25 22:35},
  url_academia.edu = {https://www.academia.edu/1064091/},
}

At the latest since the global oil crises between 1970 and 1980 "energy" has been continuously a topic in Western discourses of environmental and technology politics. Potential for innovation in the private sector is considered significant to put into practice environmental protection goals. Implicit to the aims of energy efficiency and to safe energy are the presence of actors who support corporations in reaching these aims. These agents of ecological modernisation, i.e. environmental managers, and their practices have rarely been scrutinised. This paper, therefore, aims to make them the object of enquiry – approached from a Science and Technology Studies perspective. This article studies the knowledge politics implications of techno-economic decision-making by such an actor within the energy management at a site of a multinational corporation. Based on ethnographic research at the site the article focuses on an instance of a management tool, corporate suggestion schemes, to mobilise workers' ideas of improving the environmental performance. With this it becomes possible to attend to how corporate agents of ecological modernisation deal with the issue "energy". Prior research focused on other aspects, but not on the actor. We find that the manager uses specific forms of knowledge – adequate to the discourse of ecological modernisation – while, however, sidelining alternative forms. Thus, the latter are lost to sustainable development. We conclude, that the actors' knowledge practice renders corporate energy management unsustainable. To conceptualise a way out of this dilemma the article draws on theories of grounded utopias.

@InCollection{Lippert:2010Yearbook-2009,
  author    = {Ingmar Lippert},
  booktitle = {Yearbook 2009 of the {Institute for Advanced Studies on Science, Technology and Society}},
  title     = {Disposed to Unsustainability? {E}cological Modernisation as a Techno-Science Enterprise with Conflicting Normative Orientations},
  doi       = {10/bbm9},
  editor    = {Arno Bamm{\'e} and G{\"u}nter Getzinger and Bernhard Wieser},
  pages     = {275--290},
  publisher = {Profil},
  abstract  = {In the 1970s widespread awareness of a ‘global environmental crisis’ began to emerge in Western societies. Specific staff were employed to deal with environmental problems. While they are supposed to manage the greening of their organisations, committed to sustainable development, research did not study these agents in their own right. By drawing on two ethnographic cases this paper questions whether their dispositions are likely to help in approaching sustainability. The paper then takes up Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and field, a critical realist account of normativity and ANT’s emphasis of heterogeneity to argue that the agents have conflicting normative dispositions.},
  address   = {M{\"u}nchen},
  keywords  = {ecological modernisation, unsustainability, agency, environmental sociology},
  timestamp = {2020-06-19 21:16},
  year      = {2010},
}

In the 1970s widespread awareness of a ‘global environmental crisis’ began to emerge in Western societies. Specific staff were employed to deal with environmental problems. While they are supposed to manage the greening of their organisations, committed to sustainable development, research did not study these agents in their own right. By drawing on two ethnographic cases this paper questions whether their dispositions are likely to help in approaching sustainability. The paper then takes up Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and field, a critical realist account of normativity and ANT’s emphasis of heterogeneity to argue that the agents have conflicting normative dispositions.

@InCollection{Wolf2005,
  author       = {Stephan Wolf and Ingmar Lippert},
  title        = {Hochschulen auf dem Weg zur Nachhaltigkeit: M{\"o}glichkeiten studentischer Partizipation in Umweltmanagementsystemen},
  chapter      = {9},
  booktitle ={Umweltmanagement an Hochschulen: Nachhaltigkeitsperspektiven},
  doi          = {10/bqvb},
  editor       = {{Walter Leal} Filho and Bernd Delakowitz},
  origlanguage = {German},
  pages        = {143--162},
  publisher    = {Peter Lang Verlag},
  abstract     = {Wir entwickeln eine kritische studentische Perspektive auf Nachhaltigkeitspolitik an Hochschulen. Dabei betrachten wir den reduzierenden Fokus hochschulischer Nachhaltigkeistarbeit auf Umweltmanagementsysteme im Verhältnis auf die Potentiale der Hinterfragung von Lehre und Forschung aus der Perspektive des Nachhaltigkeitsdiskurses. Für einen Prozess der nachhaltigen Hochschulentwicklung erscheint als wesentlich, Studium, hochschulpolitische Engagementmöglichkeiten sowie Forschung selbst zum Objekt von Nachhaltigkeitsdiskussionen in den Vordergrund zu stellen.},
  address      = {Frankfurt am Main},
  timestamp    = {2020-06-19 20:50},
  usere        = {Higher Education Institutions on Their Way to Sustainability: Possibilities for Student Participation in Environmental Management Systems},
  year         = {2005},
}

Wir entwickeln eine kritische studentische Perspektive auf Nachhaltigkeitspolitik an Hochschulen. Dabei betrachten wir den reduzierenden Fokus hochschulischer Nachhaltigkeistarbeit auf Umweltmanagementsysteme im Verhältnis auf die Potentiale der Hinterfragung von Lehre und Forschung aus der Perspektive des Nachhaltigkeitsdiskurses. Für einen Prozess der nachhaltigen Hochschulentwicklung erscheint als wesentlich, Studium, hochschulpolitische Engagementmöglichkeiten sowie Forschung selbst zum Objekt von Nachhaltigkeitsdiskussionen in den Vordergrund zu stellen.