Write a 1 page response with your thoughts about the idea of Slow Tech, and its principles. What did you find interesting? What questions do you have?

Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society
Slow Tech: a quest for good, clean and fair ICT
Norberto Patrignani Diane Whitehouse

Article information:
To cite this document:
Norberto Patrignani Diane Whitehouse , (2014

)

,”Slow Tech: a quest for good, clean and fair ICT”, Journal of
Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, Vol. 12 Iss 2 pp. 78 –

92

Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JICES-11-2013-0051

Downloaded on: 12 January 2016, At: 09:57 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 59 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 350 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Tobias Matzner, (2014),”Why privacy is not enough privacy in the context of “ubiquitous computing” and
“big data””, Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, Vol. 12 Iss 2 pp. 93-106 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/JICES-08-2013-0030
Michael Lemke, Keith W. Miller, (2014),”On robots as genetically modified invasive species”, Journal of
Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, Vol. 12 Iss 2 pp. 122-132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
JICES-06-2013-0019
Neil Kenneth McBride, (2014),”ACTIVE ethics: an information systems ethics for the internet age”, Journal
of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, Vol. 12 Iss 1 pp. 21-44 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
JICES-06-2013-0017

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:331081 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

D
ow

nl
oa

de
d

by
I

nd
ia

na
U

ni
ve

rs
it

y
B

lo
om

in
gt

on
A

t
09

:5
7

12
J

an
ua

ry
2

01
6

(P
T

)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JICES-11-2013-0051

Slow Tech: a quest for good,
clean and fair ICT

Norberto Patrignani
Politecnico of Torino, Torino, Italy, and

Diane Whitehouse
The Castlegate Consultancy, Malton, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce the term Slow Tech as a way of describing
information and communication technology (ICT) that is good, clean and fair. These are technologies
that are human centred, environmentally sustainable and socially desirable.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper’s approach is based on a qualitative discourse that
justifies the introduction of Slow Tech as a new design paradigm.

Findings – The limits of the human body, and the need to take into account human wellbeing, the
limits of the planet and stakeholders’ interests in decision making, all suggest the need for a new
paradigm, Slow Tech, in the design of ICT and ICT systems. Three scenarios are described as case
studies.

Practical implications – In order to prepare the next generation of researchers and computer
professionals, many different actions need to be taken. Universities and colleges need to redesign
education programmes for computer scientists and engineers by introducing subjects related to the
social and ethical implications of computing (currently, only few countries, like the UK, have already
done this), and computer professionals’ associations need to introduce a code of ethics or ethical
analysis into their members’ career development. As a result, future computer professionals who are
familiar with the Slow Tech approach will be able to collaborate much more easily across the kind of
cross disciplinary teams suited to design human centred, sustainable and desirable technologies.

Social implications – Rather than simply focusing on the role of computer professionals, all
members of society are called to play a new role in the design of future ICT scenarios. Starting a
societal dialogue that involves computer professionals, users, researchers, designers,
ICT industrialists, and policy makers is very much needed.

Originality/value – The value of this paper is in its call for reflection followed by action. Based on
an holistic approach to the design of new ICT systems, the paper advocates a new starting point for
systems design: it should be based on a long-term view of the desirability and social importance of
technologies, their environmental impact and sustainability, and the fairness and equity of the
conditions of workers involved in the computing manufacturing processes.

Keywords Cleant ICT, Environmentally sustainable, Ethically acceptable, Fair ICT, Good ICT,

Slow Tech

Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction
We are returning to a set of observations, made in some cases a 150 years ago, but
which started to reach mainstream awareness some 50 years ago.

The concept of the limits to growth were first applied to the planetary environment,
whereas today questions are being posed about continuing information and
communication technologies (ICT) development. ICT, and the encouragement of the
rapid expansion of technologies, have always been the most dramatic, technical
representation of the Olympic motto, “citius, altius, fortius” (faster, higher, stronger).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-996X.htm

Received 23 November 2013
Revised 19 December 2013
Accepted 20 December 2013

Journal of Information,
Communication and Ethics in Society
Vol. 12 No. 2, 2014
pp. 78-92
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1477-996X
DOI 10.1108/JICES-11-2013-0051

JICES
12,2

78

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
I
nd
ia
na
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
B
lo
om
in
gt
on
A
t
09
:5
7
12
J
an
ua
ry
2
01
6
(P
T
)

Until recently, the evolutionary speed of ICT was never questioned: it was always
taken to be a good (or good) in its own right. Progress in the development of ICT was
driven by the apparently unlimited growth represented by Moore’s (1965) law: an
empirical law, observed for half a century already, which states that the number of
transistors that can be integrated into a microchip doubles in about every two years or
18 months.

Storage, processing power, and transmission speed have all continued to expand at
unprecedented rates. Storage dimensions are now in the order of billions of gigabytes
(1 gigabyte: 109 bytes); the 2013 threshold of Big Data is 1 exabyte (1 exabyte: 1018

bytes). The fastest computer on the planet is Chinese and is called Tianhe-2; it runs at
about 33 millions of billions of floating point operations per second (FLOPS),
i.e. 33 PetaFLOPS (Top500, 2013). Purely as an example, connection communication
between Australian cities of Sydney and Melbourne has seen bits transmitted at the
speed of 1,000 gigabit/s, that is, 1 terabit/s (McDonald, 2013).

Yet such untamed growth is not possible on planet earth, not only because of the
limits of materials needed to build ICT, but also as the result of a kind of rebound effect:
increases in efficiency (due to high-tech) tend to increase the rate of consumption of
resources (Hilty et al., 2011) – what is being seen is a contemporary version of the
Jevons’ (1866) paradox that is related economically, rather than to coal, to ICT and the
materials used to create them and energy to use them.

Over the past 50 years, a new awareness about the importance to establish a more
suitable model for our society has grown all around the globe. The cyclical notion of
the planet’s limits was recognised from the 1960s onwards. In her book, Silent Spring,
Carson (1962) warned of the deadly consequences for animals and human beings of an
unlimited use of pesticides. A decade later, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) System Dynamics Group published the “The Limits of Growth” report,
commissioned by the Club of Rome. It argued that the environmental limits of the earth
could not continue to sustain an industrial model based on exponential growth and
unlimited consumption of natural resources (Meadows et al., 1972). In 2007, the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the largest group of scientists
studying the consequences of human activities on the environment, published its list of
recommendations. The panel advocated the need to take into account the limits of
greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, in order to avoid catastrophic
consequences on people’s living conditions (IPCC, 2007).

Until recently, the world of ICT was considered to be immune from any similar
concept of limits. However, this immunity is now being seriously questioned: the entire
technology lifecycle and the long-term sustainability of ICT are beginning to be
assessed from both the environmental and social points of view (Whitehouse et al.,
2011). In February 2013, the First International Conference on ICT for Sustainability
was held in Switzerland. It brought together several hundreds of world-leading experts
in the field of environmental sustainability and the use of ICT (ICT4S, 2013). In today’s
digital world, it is equally important to consider various set of limits, such as those that
apply to data conservation, to human sensory and intellectual “bandwidth”, and to the
roles that ICT applications play in many areas of human life including institutions,
organisations and politics.

As a result of this revival in awareness, this paper examines areas of importance in
which to explore several associated, yet separate limits to ICT: for human beings,

Slow Tech

79

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
I
nd
ia
na
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
B
lo
om
in
gt
on
A
t
09
:5
7
12
J
an
ua
ry
2
01
6
(P
T
)

the environment and society. It shows in what ways contemporary technologies pose
both challenges and opportunities in these three domains. It reflects on several
traditional approaches to social and ethical impacts of ICT (a domain often defined as
computer ethics). A proposal is made for the need for a new, positive and more
proactive way of designing technologies. Most concretely, this reflection paper
introduces an approach which it calls Slow Tech – which provides a parallel with the
concept of Slow Food. It argues that ICT must be positioned in terms of three important
criteria: good, clean, and fair. The paper explores three case study examples of the Slow
Tech approach. It goes on to discuss Slow Tech in a more analytical way, and to reach
a number of conclusions. This final discussion suggests how Slow Tech as an initiative
could be taken further: for example, how it could be applied and implemented in
domains populated by researchers, teachers, computer professionals and their
associations, policy makers, and end-users. It frames various actions that might be
taken to facilitate the growth of a Slow Tech movement.

2. The need for proactive computer ethics
In the same way that planetary preoccupations have grown in the period since the
post-Second World War a consolidated period of reflection about the meaning of
computers has also developed over the past 50 years. In 1968, in particular, the famous
photograph from space of the finite “spaceship earth” probably changed people’s
consciousness about planetary resources and human habitat.

Seen historically, this period can be interpreted as a progression in three-steps in
thinking about the field of computer ethics. Reflecting in some ways the Nolan’s (1973,
1979) stages of growth for information systems, they can be called the initial,
compensatory or reactive, and maturation phases of computer ethics. Today, a more
proactive form of computer ethics is needed.

Three phases of computer ethics are evident. The first, initial phase preceding
computer ethics is that associated with Norbert Wiener. As a professor at MIT in the
1950s, Wiener (1948, 1950) invited the scientific community, and society in general, to
analyse the social and ethical impacts of computers. As a result, he is considered to be the
founder of the computer ethics discipline (Bynum, 1999). Reflection on the role of ICT
and society then progressed slowly for a period: while several contributions were made
to the field, ethics and ICT remained separate for a number of years. According to Parker
(1968): “It seemed that when people entered the computer center they left their ethics
at the door”. A quarter of a century following Wiener’s appeal for reflection, another
important contribution to the questioning of information technology came from
Weizenbaum (1976). Weizenbaum recommended not to delegate important, life critical,
decisions to computers, since computers will always lack human qualities such as
compassion and wisdom. He stipulated that there is a fundamental distinction between
deciding (a computational activity), and choosing (an activity to be undertaken by
human beings). Jonas (1979) focused on technological choices and their consequences
for future generations; as he stated: “Human survival depends on our efforts to care
for our planet and its future”. Thus, philosophy included a consideration not only of
human beings’ behaviour, but also of artefacts, new technologies and the possible
consequences of their deployment.

The very first definition of computer ethics emerged in 1985 when James H. Moor
introduced the concept of a “policy vacuum” into the computing world. He wrote:

JICES
12,2

80

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
I
nd
ia
na
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
B
lo
om
in
gt
on
A
t
09
:5
7
12
J
an
ua
ry
2
01
6
(P
T
)

[. . .] a typical problem in Computer Ethics arises because there is a policy vacuum about how
computer technology should be used. Computers provide us with new capabilities and these in
turn give us new choices for action. Often, either no policies for conduct in these situations exist
or existing policies seem inadequate. A central task of Computer Ethics is to determine what we
should do in such cases, that is, formulate policies to guide our actions [. . .] (Moor, 1985, p. 1).

This policy vacuum implies a delay between ICT developments, and societies and their
capacity to deal with related social and ethical issues. The speed of technological
transformation is so rapid that human beings have little conceptual background with
which to address the issues that emerge: they have little time to develop the theory and
understanding needed to make informed decisions. The main focus of computer ethics
at this stage of development is to provide human beings with advice, guidelines, and
policies about what is right and what is wrong with computers. This phase constitutes
a compensatory or reactive phase of computer ethics.

The second phase of the computer ethics involved a maturation process. Insights by
two theorists are of particular value: they were provided by ethicists, engineers and
designers, Deborah Johnson and by Batya Friedman. If, according to Johnson (1985),
“[. . .] technology is not just artifacts, but rather artifacts embedded in social practices and
infused with social meaning”, this means that society and technology are co-shaping each
other. It therefore becomes important to look at ICT systems as socio-technical systems.
Similarly, a core assumption of the value sensitive design approach (Friedman, 1996) is
that ICT systems are infused with social and moral values and all artifacts created by ICT
engineers embody political, social, and ethical values. As a result, one needs to question the
values which engineers – among many other stakeholders, that is, alongside their work
colleagues, their technical and administrative superiors, the surrounding organisations,
and society – embed in ICT systems, and what values drive the ICT evolution.

Now, almost three decades since Moor’s initial definition of computer ethics, it has
become critically important to raise a further set of fundamental questions about
computer ethics: there is a ground-breaking shift in recognition of the need for more
proactive form of computer ethics. First, these questions include whether the computer
revolution is inescapable in its present form. Is the perceived gap that exists between
science and technology on one side and society on the other really unavoidable? Second,
they involve a questioning of ICT systems at their design stage and throughout their
lifecycle. This calls for an on-going and continuous dialogue between engineers or
computer scientists and society: it means that a profound risk analysis needs to take
place inside the software development processes (Gotterbarn and Rogerson, 2005).

It signals a departure away from the traditional position of technology push and from
the mantra that technology is driving the future. Rather, it is human beings and society
that should now form the starting point of ICT developments. Engineers should start
working together with experts from fields such as anthropology, human-computer
interaction, philosophy, and sociology. According to De George (2003), the founder of
business ethics, who articulated sentiments very similar to those of Joseph Weizenbaum:
“Computers and Information Technology should help and serve people and society.
Where they do not, they should not be passively accepted”.

Thus, today there is a pressing need to rethink the domain of computer ethics, and
to place it on a more proactive footing. Computer ethics have to become a tool to steer
computing innovation constructively in a responsible way, and not simply a tool
to compensate or fill a policy gap. This is a form of responsible innovation that places

Slow Tech

81

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
I
nd
ia
na
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
B
lo
om
in
gt
on
A
t
09
:5
7
12
J
an
ua
ry
2
01
6
(P
T
)

human beings, society, sustainability, the environment and planet as essential, critical
factors at the basis of the development of science and technology. The Slow Tech
concept, which at its heart is such a simple, three-part idea, can be used as a simple
steering instrument – a compass – to find a more accurate route on this engineering
and human quest towards a proactive computer ethics and, ultimately, technologies
that serve humanity and the planet more effectively.

3. Slow Tech: an overview
Slow Tech should not be seen as technology that is slow, but as a concept or message
that enables people to reflect, stand back, and consider. Thus, the opportunity that it
provides for human reflection and intervention and action means that it has a growing
importance in supporting this striving – or quest – for ethical ICT.

In 1989, an international grassroots organisation called Slow Food was founded. Its
goal was to “counter the rise of fast food and fast life” (Slow Food International, 1989).
Slow Food concentrates on the concept of food that must be good, clean and fair. The
Slow Food movement introduced a process of reflection on the entire food-chain.
Carlo Petrini, founder and main inspiration of the movement, described Slow Food as
food that must be good (or taste good), and must be a pleasure to eat. Good food is
prepared by rediscovering histories and traditions (such as ancient recipes based on local
wisdom, that are transmitted orally from one generation to another). Petrini suggested
that, while people eat, they should seek to reflect on where their food come from. Good
food must be selected according to its quality. It must be produced following criteria that
respect the environment – it must be clean – and it should promote biodiversity and
sustainability. The cultivation and production of food must also respect the rights of
farmers (it must be fair) (Petrini, 2007, 2011).

Similarly, we propose a Slow Tech approach that begins with a reflection on the
whole of the ICT value-chain. We suggest applying the same concepts – of good, clean,
and fair – developed by the Slow Food movement to ICT. We therefore call this trio of
socially aware, environmentally sustainable, and ethical considerations, Slow Tech.

In three following sub-sections of this paper, we explore the character of good
ICT, clean ICT, and fair ICT. In each case, we start from the meaning of good food,
clean food, and fair food. These descriptions are then adapted to ICT. For example,
good ICT is concentrated around notions of enjoyment, aesthetics, balance, user
involvement, technology assessment, and human-centredness. Clean ICT means taking
into consideration the entirety of the materials and product lifecycles used to create,
manufacture and dispose of the technology. Fair ICT means paying special
consideration to the employment-related side of ICT, and ensuring that it is just or
equitable. Each of these aspects of Slow Tech are currently at different levels and stages
of maturity and development, and they are often now treated separately.

It is a major challenge to start to bring an understanding of each of these three
elements together in a holistic pattern of reflection and action (for example, to consider
Slow Tech as a new form of quality assurance in ICT development and use).

3.1 Good ICT
Good food is delicious and pleasant. It stimulates the sense of taste and involves all the
other senses in a complex and enjoyable experience, extending to the entire body
and mind. Can we imagine a similar experience occurring with ICT? Can we transform

JICES
12,2

82

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
I
nd
ia
na
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
B
lo
om
in
gt
on
A
t
09
:5
7
12
J
an
ua
ry
2
01
6
(P
T
)

our interaction with computers into enjoyment? ICT could be good for human beings
when the systems are designed by using a human-centred approach. In this case, good
means good for the essential well-being of human beings. Slow Tech can enhance
human experience and, at the same time, reduce the effort needed to do certain
necessary, but sometimes less pleasant, tasks.

Human beings have certain characteristics: they become old, they forget, and they
become distracted. Thus, it is important to concentrate more on the complex interaction
between human beings and technology. This sophisticated interchange can become an
enjoyable experience only if the system and the human-computer interfaces are designed
to take human limits into account. Slow Tech therefore implies a search for a new
balance between rational thinking and more aesthetic thinking, in which beauty plays
a fundamental role. Good ICT means taking into account all the senses of the body,
so that it supports people in, for example, enhancing their health and well-being or it
specifically helps elderly people or people with disabilities to live a better quality of life.

Good ICT can also help people to find an appropriate balance between their working
time and free time or leisure, between the time needed for work and societal obligations
and the time needed for themselves as human beings. Nowadays, there is a risk that ICT is
accelerating people’s daily lives, and transforming the states of “doing” and “being” into
a single state of only “doing”. The “always-on” capability provided by ICT may have
a major impact on a variety of aspects of people’s lives (Bradley, 2006). A 2012 study on
this subject showed that only a small number of organisations has a formal work/life
balance policy in place: only 1 per cent of the organisations studied had “days or time when
email is not used” such as “e-mail-free Fridays” or “mail-free week ends” (SHRM, 2012).

Good ICT also needs to involve technology assessments that minimise the risks
related to complex software systems. Risk analysis should address very precise
questions about the possible consequences of technology development for all
stakeholders involved, and find solutions to all the identified issues (Gotterbarn, 1992;
Rogerson and Gotterbarn, 1998; Gotterbarn and Rogerson, 2005). Good ICT must
involve users and society in the design stage itself as well as later parts of the ICT
lifecycle; good ICT cannot just result from technology push. It needs to be the outcome
of an approach to the assessment, design, and development of technological and
organisational systems that places a premium on the active involvement of workplace
practitioners or ordinary people in society itself (who are usually the potential or current
users of the system) in design and decision-making processes. This approach to ICT
systems development is called participatory design (CPSR, 1996).

In summary, good ICT means human-centred ICT: technologies that improve
human well-being and well-living.

3.2 Clean ICT
Clean food means food whose production or consumption does no harm to the
environment, animal welfare, or human health. By extension, clean ICT focuses on
avoiding harm to the environment and human health. Clean ICT means developing
computer systems and networks that are respectful of the planet, and that are designed
and produced while taking into account their impact on the environment.

In the past, ICT was always accepted by definition as being “good” for the environment.
Only recently has research on ICT sustainability started (Kuhndt et al., 2006), often
in response whether directly or indirectly to the Millennium Development Goals

Slow Tech

83

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
I
nd
ia
na
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
B
lo
om
in
gt
on
A
t
09
:5
7
12
J
an
ua
ry
2
01
6
(P
T
)

(United Nations Development Program, 2005). High-tech, however, generates toxic hazards
throughout its lifecycle (from its design, production, and consumption to its disposal).
Nonetheless, the entire ICT lifecycle and its environmental impact is increasingly being
taken into account: from the raw materials involved, to ICT and ICT applications’ use, to
e-waste management and recycling (Patrignani and Kavathatzopoulos, 2012). For example,
until few years ago, the primary elements used in microprocessors (the rare-earths) were
never considered from the sustainability point of view. Yet, in 2010 a study by Yale
University showed that “[. . .] the increasingly use and mining of rare metals, can have
devastating environmental consequences” as well as serious geo-political concerns
(Schmitz and Graedel, 2010). For example, gold can be extracted from old computers and
then recycled, with approximately the same level of convenience as mining it (Step, 2013).

A major environmental challenge is arising from the need to provide the power to
operate ICT: in the cloud computing era, the energy necessary to power gigantic data
centres doubles every five years (Uddin and Rahman, 2010; Rowe et al., 2011). The
consequent demand for electricity, and the related increase in CO2 emissions, has an effect
on climate change that is around the same level as that of the airline industry (Fettweis and
Zimmermann, 2008; European Commission, 2012). Even the least tangible side of ICT –
software – could have an impact on the environment. Central processing units consume
different levels of energy depending on programming styles: significant power savings
can be made possible through appropriate programming (Kern et al., 2013). Clean ICT also
means considering carefully the destination of computing hardware at the end of its life.
Despite some advances made (due to 2012 European legislation), at a global level the vast
majority of e-waste is sent to unspecified locations and destinations where its treatment
process is also unknown. It remains unclear how such hazardous substances as lead,
cadmium, chromium and mercury contained in ICT products are being processed. This
lack of regulation implies a high risk of environmental pollution. For these reasons, since
2006, Greenpeace (2012) has been monitoring the ICT industry closely.

The concept of recyclable-by-design is starting to appear in the ICT world as a welcome
proactive step in the appropriate direction. All the necessary possible measures are being
taken prior to manufacturing a product so as to ensure that it can be made easily recyclable.
“Cradle-to-cradle”, or “regenerative”-design is an industrial framework that seeks to create
systems that are efficient, waste-free and that learn from natural cycles (Lovins, 2008).
However, even the cleanest ICT industry and the most efficient recycling mechanism cannot
cope with the growing speed of ICT consumption: on average today, consumers change their
smartphones every 18 months. This fact explains Greenpeace’s (2012) recommendations to
extend the lifetime of existing ICT devices, and for consumers to purchase only what they
really need.

Clean ICT involves a quest to slow down the ICT lifecycle. It aims to minimise any
harm done by the production and use of ICT, and – more generally – to extend the
lifecycle of ICT products by reducing the replacement rate of ICT devices. It also
represents two challenges: on the demand side, the desire to accumulate material goods
and to follow only the latest fashions or trends in electronic devices, and on the supply
side, to the rush to make a short-term profit.

3.3 Fair ICT
Fair food implies affordable prices for consumers, and fair conditions and equitable pay
for small-scale food producers and farmers. Similarly, fair ICT can be defined as being

JICES
12,2

84

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
I
nd
ia
na
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
B
lo
om
in
gt
on
A
t
09
:5
7
12
J
an
ua
ry
2
01
6
(P
T
)

respectful of the human rights, self esteem, and health and safety, of workers in ICT
manufacturing as well as of ICT users. Fair ICT must take into account the interests of all
types of actors involved throughout the entire ICT stakeholders’ network (Gotterbarn
and Rogerson, 2005). From manufacturing, data centre design and product recycling, to
the creation and execution of software applications, the whole ICT lifecycle needs
investigation by all the stakeholders engaged along the line or throughout the network.
Among the many issues involved in creating fair ICT, to the fore is the need to secure a
good quality of working life for all, wherever the workers are located around the globe
and whatever their age. Take China and South Korea as example countries. Towards the
end of 2012, it was acknowledged that small improvements were taking place in these
countries’ ICT manufacturing companies (Bradshaw and Duhigg, 2012). Nevertheless,
it is still recognised that profound constructive organisational changes may be required
for many more decades to come (Bradshaw and Duhigg, 2012; Bulard, 2013).

Fair ICT also means open ICT, an ICT that contributes positively to the economy and
society through the enabling of innovation potential. When the two concepts of open
software and open hardware are applied to ICT, it becomes possible to imagine the
immense innovation potential of ICT. Real innovation in ICT is based on the availability
of openly defined layers, through which others can use, adapt and improve the systems
and technologies. For example, the openness of the basic protocol of the internet, TCP/IP,
with its end-to-end connectivity and network neutrality property, enables anyone to
define new applications on top of it (and to develop new physical channels for
transporting bits under it). An open definition of standards is thus the main trigger for
innovation and for the generation of social and economic benefits. One of the most
famous examples of this open software and openness approach, is the “free and open
software” defined by the Free Software Foundation in 1985 and related to users’ freedom
to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve software (Free Software Foundation,
2013). The current contribution of the open source software to the economy of the
European Union has been estimated at e456 billion a year (Daffara, 2012; Hillenius,
2012). Direct cost savings of e114 billion in licences, and indirect cost savings of
e342 billion, result from the reduced number of project failures (Hillenius, 2012), due to
the better quality of open software, lower costs for code maintenance, and increases in
productivity and efficiency. Open source hardware is another example of this openness:
this phenomenon relates to hardware design that is open to everyone. It can include the
bill of materials, printed and integrated circuits layouts, schematics, and the necessary
software. One of the best known examples of open source hardware is the Italian
Arduino (2013) platform.

Fair ICT can provide a significant contribution to community value by stimulating
the creation of local high-tech companies, and organisations that support clients’
companies through the development of new business models. These initiatives provide
consultancy, and they personalise, customise, and maintain both hardware and
software applications. Thus, fair ICT can be at the same time innovative and socially
advanced. At European policy level there is a growing interest in moving in this
direction: the European Commission (2011, p. 6) recommended that, by 2014:

[. . .] large EU enterprises should make a commitment about their corporate social
responsibilities approaches [. . .] and to fully meet their social responsibility, enterprises
should have in place a process to integrate social, environmental, ethical human rights and
consumer concerns.

Slow Tech

85

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
I
nd
ia
na
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
B
lo
om
in
gt
on
A
t
09
:5
7
12
J
an
ua
ry
2
01
6
(P
T
)

It will become advisable for companies to monitor the working conditions in their
technology providers’ manufacturing plants located in such countries as in China and
South Korea. Consumers of ICT products and services are becoming more and more
sensitive to these concerns. When people and companies use ICT, they too are starting
to pose such questions as where the device actually originates from and under what
conditions (Elmer-DeWitt, 2013).

Fair ICT drives the achievement of a balance among the interests of all the
stakeholders, including the workers and the planet. Aiming for fair ICT will help ICT
companies and organisations to realise that there are many actors involved in their
stakeholders’ network who have a wide range of differing interests.

4. Slow Tech: three case study examples
What, then, does Slow Tech mean as an approach used in practice when applied to the
real world? Three case studies are explored to illustrate Slow Tech’s real-life application.
All three of the case studies aim for good ICT. Some focus more on the notion of clean
ICT, and others on an approach to fair ICT. Generally, the three cases use technology to
reduce damage to the environment (cleanness); they concentrate on goodness and
fairness; yet, in addition, they develop technology in a way that enables the notion of
smartness – innovation – to move forward. Two of the three cases are associated with
health, well-being, and health systems.

The number of exemplar cases is growing steadily, and certainly other examples
from around Europe or the globe could also have been proposed. Yet, Italy was the
destination of choice for these authors. The three examples selected were chosen
specifically as coming from Italy, since it is the country of origin of Slow Food and
hence it can also be seen as the launchpad location for Slow Tech. The Green@Hospital
case is a version of sustainable technology that does not damage the environment. The
Olivetti case refers to an ICT company which – although now a small entity within a
much larger corporation – had an historical reputation for its focus on the goodness
and fairness of its approach to innovation, and design of products and processes. In the
third case, Loccioni-Humancare shows how desirable technology can enhance human
well-being.

4.1 Green@Hospital
Among several new large-scale pilots are three that focus on environmental and
sustainability concerns – they investigate hospital energy reduction: Green@Hospital
(2013), Hospilot, and RES Hospitals. Hospitals are large energy consumers
(Elmer-DeWitt, 2013). In most European countries, there is a high proportion of
ageing building stock (a status that affects most public and private buildings). Hospitals
are among the least energy-efficient type of the union’s public buildings. There is thus an
important need to achieve real energy savings from existing hospital building stock.
At the same time, when new hospitals are built – as many are – they need to be more
sustainable (Elmer-DeWitt, 2013).

The Green@Hospital pilot is an interesting initiative that started in spring 2012.
It aims to integrate the latest ICT solutions into hospitals for environmental purposes.
Its goal is to obtain a significant energy saving in existing hospital buildings through
two mechanisms: first, a more effective management of energy resources and, second,
a reduction in energy loss. Its challenging overall objective is to achieve a 20 per cent

JICES
12,2

86

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
I
nd
ia
na
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
B
lo
om
in
gt
on
A
t
09
:5
7
12
J
an
ua
ry
2
01
6
(P
T
)

reduction in hospitals’ consumption of energy. A Web-based Energy Management and
Control Systems (called Web-EMCS) is to be developed: “It will integrate, monitor and
control multiple buildings systems at the component level. Moreover, models to assess
the energy savings will be developed and algorithms for consumption optimisation
implemented” (Elmer-DeWitt, 2013).

The developments are being trialled in four hospitals in different European countries.
Two are located in the Spanish region of Andalucı́a, in the cities of Barcelona and
Granada; another is based in Chania, Crete; and the fourth is the university hospital of
Ancona, Italy. They are to demonstrate the validity of the solution that has been
proposed under real-life operating conditions. Each hospital will trial different aspects of
the overall plan. The study acts as a basis for replication of the solutions developed. The
potential savings and return on investment identified can, it is anticipated, be taken on
board elsewhere. As with all the other large-scale pilots being undertaken, it is hoped
that the findings can be repeated on a much wider scale and yield more comprehensive
outcomes. The pilot’s focus, through the four hospitals, is on the development and use of
ICT to contribute to a cleaner, more efficient, built environment, i.e. clean ICT.

4.2 Olivetti
A second, historical, case study is the thinking and work of one of the twentieth century’s
most important Italian industrialists and visionaries: Adriano Olivetti (Ivrea,
1901-1960). Olivetti was able to combine advanced technologies, innovation,
production, profit, solidarity, social responsibility and beauty in a joint enterprise.
Three examples of his company’s technological developments are noteworthy. In 1959,
the first mainframe computer based on transistors, the Olivetti ELEA 9003, was
designed by Ettore Sottsass, one of the most famous designers of the twentieth century.
In 1965, the first personal computer, the Olivetti P101, was designed by the architect
Mario Bellini (WSJ, 1965). In 1962, the Olivetti Electronic Center building, located
between Torino and Milano, in Italy, was designed by Le Corbusier (Olivetti, 1959). This
climate of innovation was based on the design and construction of one of the most
socially advanced working environments of the 1950s: in the factory area there was a
library where many cultural events took place, there was a nursery and schools, and the
company introduced nine months of paid maternity leave for women. The community
included houses built for workers and a development plan intended for the whole city.
Many of Olivetti’s ideas were forerunners of the notions of good and fair ICT, in terms of
design, equipment, buildings and environments that were also good, fair, and beautiful.

4.3 APOTECAchemo by Loccioni
A third, more contemporary, case study is APOTECAchemo (the word APOTECA is
derived from the Ancient Greek or Latin for a storehouse, which is now used with the
meaning of a pharmacy). APOTECAchemo is a robotic application for hospitals
developed in 2010 by the Italian company, Loccioni. Designed and tested with the
contribution and participation of nurses and clinicians who come from a combination of
local hospitals and who collaborate in a dedicated forum, the system is now used in many
hospitals around the world. Its robotic arm prepares the precise pharmaceutical dosages
needed for the treatment of cancer patients. It produces careful and exact weightings of
all the chemical ingredients necessary to treat severely ill patients, and it manipulates
the substances in a way that ensures a high level of safety for all the people involved in
the process:

Slow Tech

87

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
I
nd
ia
na
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
B
lo
om
in
gt
on
A
t
09
:5
7
12
J
an
ua
ry
2
01
6
(P
T
)

[. . .] The manual preparation of cytotoxic drugs has a high possibility of dosage errors with
serious consequences for the patient and high professional risks for those who remain
exposed to carcinogens of cytotoxic drugs. Patients are protected by humancare high-tech
solutions that recognize the active ingredients [. . .] The tracking system of all phases, based
on a barcode, allows a perfect integration between the department and the oncological
pharmacy service [. . .] (Loccioni-Humancare, 2012, p. 1).

APOTECAchemo is an ICT solution, based on an integrated approach, that places the
patient at the very centre of the hospital workflow. Thus, it reduces the costs of
customised therapies, validates them, and makes health systems more efficient,
sustainable, and human (Loccioni-Humancare, 2012). Such well-being is a concept that
is likely to come to the fore in the next phase of the information society.

Of the three case studies, APOTECAchemo, created by the Loccioni company, is the
closest to the concept of Slow Tech. It is a combination of good, clean, and fair ICT. It is
good because the system has been designed with the goal of ensuring the safety of
patients and nurses. Participatory design was fundamental to the system development:
a community of patients, nurses and hospital professionals continues to collaborate on
monitoring and improving the resulting solution. It is clean: Loccioni is a famous
example of a joint approach to innovation and environmental care. In 2010, the
company received the National Innovation Award from the President of the Italian
Republic and the National Enterprise-Environment Award from the environmental
association, Legambiente. The company and its products, such as APOTECAchemo,
are also fair, since Loccioni has defined and demonstrated a strong sense of corporate
social responsibility that always puts people and workers at the centre of its strategies
and activities.

5. Discussion
Human beings, and the planet itself, are finding it difficult to cope with the increasing
speed of consumption of ICT: a point of crisis is likely on the horizon. Thus, this paper
focuses on a need for Slow Tech and for ICT that is good, clean, and fair.

To date, the focus of Slow Tech has been on the three notions of good, clean, and fair
ICT. However, this quest could also, ultimately, be expanded, in research terms,
to include a further six dimensions. These further dimensions are adapted from the work
of two authors, Alexander Langer and René Von Schomberg, who have worked quite
separately, over different time-periods, but whose work bears some resemblance.
According to Langer, a tension exists between competition at any cost (whether social,
democratic or environmental) and new concepts of well-being and well-living. Langer
was the first to propose taking a distance from the Olympic motto “Citius, Altius,
Fortius” (faster, higher, stronger), so as to move towards an alternative set of concepts.
Instead, they focus on “Lentius, Profundius, Suavius” (slower, deeper, sweeter).
He suggested that, by slowing down the consumption of resources, life would become
more socially desirable (Langer, 1996). Similarly, but more recently and with a more
specific focus on ICT, Von Schomberg suggests to making even more precise the
meaning of responsible research and innovation in ICT. He proposes three main
characteristics (or requirements): ICT should be socially desirable, environmentally
sustainable, and ethically acceptable (Von Schomberg, 2011). If these two additional
concepts of slower, deeper, sweeter and the responsible research and innovation of ICT,
were to be added to the initial definition of Slow Tech (good, clean, and fair), it would lead

JICES
12,2

88

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
I
nd
ia
na
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
B
lo
om
in
gt
on
A
t
09
:5
7
12
J
an
ua
ry
2
01
6
(P
T
)

to an even more complete, fully holistic, picture of the Slow Tech approach. This work is
currently in its elementary stages.

Concrete proposals are needed for ways in which a Slow Tech approach could be
applied practically in the world of academe and research. For the time being, only two
proposals follow although many more are feasible. First, Slow Tech could be used to
expand the curricula of universities, research institutes, and colleges to encourage
computer science and engineering students to take into account the three dimensions of
good, clean, and fair ICT. Second, professional computing organisations or associations
could enhance their codes of conduct and professional guidelines to include the same
three dimensions, with the dual intention of affecting their members’ behaviour as well
as promoting a message acceptable to a wider community of computing professionals
and computer end-users. A good reference here is the Association for Computing
Machinery (ACM, 1999) Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice.

6. Conclusions
Slow Tech is put forward as a means of re-thinking the pace of development of ICT that,
until now, has been celebrated because it has been getting faster, stronger and more
powerful year on year. Instead, Slow Tech implies a critique of much of the status quo
(many technological challenges, conditions and directions taken should no longer be
perceived as unavoidable). We need to reappropriate the pace of technological
development and overcome the traditional view of “technological determinism” (Davies,
1997). Slow Tech is proposed as an invitation to start on a quest which is composed of a
reflection process around new and future ICT values and uses. Slow Tech is a call to
work together on combining the environmental, with the social and the ethical, in a more
considered and reflective way. Slow Tech is an appeal to a future way of designing and
using ICT to create community, organisational, and planetary environments in which it
is possible to live and work with pleasure, a more profound sense of life, in more
collective and collaborative ways, alongside technologies that make pleasant
companions, and at a more leisurely pace.

To conclude, the ultimate message of this reflection paper is that, in order to
guarantee long-term environmental and societal sustainability, human beings need to
slow down the whole lifecycle of ICT development and use. For this, a Slow Tech
approach is absolutely needed.

References

ACM (1999), Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice, available at:
www.acm.org/about/se-code (accessed 21 November 2013).

Arduino (2013), available at: www.arduino.cc (accessed 21 November 2013).

Bradley, G. (2006), Social and Community Informatics – Humans on the Net, Routledge, London.

Bradshaw, K. and Duhigg, C. (2012), “Quietly, better work conditions take hold at Chinese
factories”, International Herald Tribune, 28 December.

Bulard, M. (2013), “Samsung ou l’empire de la peur”, Le MondeDiplomatique, Juillet.

Bynum, T.W. (1999), “The foundation of computer ethics”, keynote address at The Australian
Institute of Computer Ethics Conference 1999 (AICEC99), Melbourne, Australia, July.

Carson, R. (1962), Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

CPSR (1996), Participatory design, available at: http://cpsr.org/ (accessed 21 November 2013).

Slow Tech

89

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
I
nd
ia
na
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
B
lo
om
in
gt
on
A
t
09
:5
7
12
J
an
ua
ry
2
01
6
(P
T
)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1145%2F572230.572231

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1145%2F572230.572231

Daffara, C. (2012), “Estimating the economic contribution of open source software to the
European economy”, Open Forum Academy Conference Proceedings, Bruxelles,
24 September.

Davies, P.W.F. (1997), “Technology and business ethics theory”, Business Ethics: A European
Review, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 76-80.

De George, R.T. (2003), The Ethics of Information Technology and Business, Blackwell,
Hoboken, NJ.

Elmer-DeWitt, P. (2013), “The New York Times gets its Pulitzer for picking on apple”,
available at: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/16/apple-pulitzer-ny-times/ (accessed
21 November 2013).

European Commission (2011), Sustainable and Responsible Business, European Policy on
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise (accessed
14 August 2013).

European Commission (2012), FP7-FET Proactive Initiative: Towards Zero-Power ICT (2zeroP),
available at: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/fet-proactive/2zerop_en.html (accessed
21 November 2013).

Fettweis, G. and Zimmermann, E. (2008), “ICT energy consumption – trends and challenges”,
paper presented at the 11th International Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia
Communications (WPMC 2008), Lapland, Finland, 8-11 September.

Free Software Foundation (2013), available at: www.fsf.org (accessed 21 November 2013).

Friedman, B. (1996), “Value sensitive design”, Interactions, November/December.

Gotterbarn, D. (1992), “Software engineering ethics”, in Marciniak, J.J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Software Engineering, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

Gotterbarn, D. and Rogerson, S. (2005), “Next generation software development: responsible risk
analysis using SoDIS”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
Vol. 15, pp. 730-750.

Green@Hospital (2013), available at: www.greenhospital-project.eu/ (accessed 21 November
2013).

Greenpeace (2012), Guide to Greener Electronics, available at: www.greenpeace.org/international/
en/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics/ (accessed 21 November 2013).

Hillenius, G. (2012), Contribution of Open Source to Europe’s Economy: 450 Billion Per Year,
submitted on 11 October, available at: http://joinup.ec.europa.eu (accessed 21 November
2013).

Hilty, L., Lohman, W. and Huang, E.M. (2011), “Sustainability and ICT – an overview of the
field”, in Whitehouse, D., Hilty, L.M. and Patrigiani, M.N. (Eds), “Social accountability and
sustainability in the information society: perspectives on longterm responsibility”,
Notizie di Politeia – Rivista di Etica e Scelte Pubbliche, Anno XXVII No. 104, pp. 13-28.

ICT4S (2013), The International Conference ICT4S – ICT for Sustainability, available at: www.
ict4s.org/ (accessed 21 November 2013).

IPCC (2007), Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A.,
Core Writing Team, IPCC, Geneva.

Jevons, W.S. (1866), The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and
the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-Mines, Macmillan, London.

Johnson, D.G. (1985), Computer Ethics, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2009.

JICES
12,2

90

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
I
nd
ia
na
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
B
lo
om
in
gt
on
A
t
09
:5
7
12
J
an
ua
ry
2
01
6
(P
T
)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1145%2F242485.242493

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1467-8608.00053

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1467-8608.00053

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F9780470774144

Jonas, H. (1979), Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische
Zivilisation (The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological
Age), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1985.

Kern, E., Dick, M., Naumann, S., Guldner, A. and Johann, T. (2013), “Green software and green
software engineering – definitions, measurements, and quality aspects”, in Hilty, L.M.,
Aebischer, B., Andersson, G. and Lohmann, W. (Eds), Proceedings of the ICT4S-2013,
First International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for
Sustainability, ETH Zurich, 14-16 February.

Kuhndt, M., von Geibler, J. and Herrndorf, M. (2006), “Assessing the ICT sector contribution to
the millennium development goals: status quo analysis of sustainability information for
the ICT sector”, Wuppertal Report No. 3, Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and
Energy, Wuppertal.

Langer, A. (1996), “La conversione ecologica potrà affermarsi solo se apparirà socialmente
desiderabile. Colloqui di Dobbiaco 1994”, in Langer, A. and Rabini, E. (Eds), Il viaggiatore
leggero, Sellerio editore, Palermo.

Loccioni-Humancare (2012), available at: http://humancare.loccioni.com/aboutus/apoteca/
(accessed 21 November 2013).

Lovins, L.H. (2008), “Rethinking production”, State of the World 2008 – Innovations for a
Sustainable World, The Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC.

McDonald, S. (2013), “Telstra fibre successful at 1 Tbps”, available at: www.computerworld.
com.au/article/456538/telstra_fibre_successful_1tbps/ (accessed 21 November 2013).

Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens, W.W. (1972), The Limits to Growth:
A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind, Universe Books,
New York, NY.

Moor, J.H. (1985), “What is computer ethics?”, Metaphilosophy, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 266-275.

Moore, G. (1965), “Cramming more components onto integrated circuits”, Electronics Magazine,
Vol. 38 No. 8.

Nolan, R. (1973), “Managing the computer resource: a stage hypothesis”, Communications of the
ACM, Vol. 16 No. 4.

Nolan, R. (1979), “Managing the crisis in data processing”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57
No. 2.

Olivetti, A. (1959), Città dell’uomo, Edizioni di Comunità, Milano.

Parker, D. (1968), “Rules of ethics in information processing”, Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 11 No. 3.

Patrignani, N. and Kavathatzopoulos, I. (2012), “Is the post-turing ICT sustainable? In ICT
critical infrastructure and society”, in Hercheui, M.D., Whitehouse, D., McIver, W. and
Phahlamohlaka, J. (Eds), Proceedings of the 10th IFIP TC 9 International Conference
on Human Choice and Computers, HCC10 2012, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
27-28 September, Springer, Heidelberg.

Petrini, C. (2007), Slow Food Nation: Why Our Food Should Be Good, Clean and Fair, Rizzoli Intl.
Pub., Milano.

Petrini, C. (2011), Buono, Pulito e Giusto. Principi di Nuova Gastronomia, Einaudi, Torino.

Rogerson, S. and Gotterbarn, D. (1998), “The ethics of software project management”,
in Colleste, G. (Ed.), Ethics and Information Technology, New Academic Publisher,
New Delhi.

Rowe, A., Lewis, A. and Flanagan, C. (2011), “Is the cloud green?”, Fujitsu White Paper.

Slow Tech

91

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
I
nd
ia
na
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
B
lo
om
in
gt
on
A
t
09
:5
7
12
J
an
ua
ry
2
01
6
(P
T
)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1145%2F362280.362284

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1145%2F362280.362284

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1349%2Fddlp.1

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1349%2Fddlp.1

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1979GM40700026

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1467-9973.1985.tb00173.x&isi=A1985AXZ3100002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1145%2F362929.362987

Schmitz, O.J. and Graedel, T.E. (2010), The Consumption Conundrum: Driving the Destruction
Abroad, available at: http://e360.yale.edu (accessed 21 November 2013).

SHRM (2012), Survey Findings: Work/Life Balance Policies, Society for Human Resource
Management, 12 July, available at: www.shrm.org/ (accessed 21 November 2013).

Slow Food International (1989), available at: www.slowfood.com/international/1/about-us
(accessed 21 November 2013).

Step (2013), Solving the E-waste Problem, available at: www.step-initiative.org (accessed
21 November 2013).

TOP500 (2013), “China’s Tianhe-2 supercomputer takes no. 1 ranking on 41st TOP500 list”,
available at: www.top500.org/blog/lists/2013/06/press-release/ (accessed 21 November 2013).

Uddin, M. and Rahman, A.A. (2010), “Server consolidation: an approach to make data centers
energy efficient & green”, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research,
Vol. 1 No. 1.

United Nations Development Program (2005), available at: www.undp.org/content/undp/en/
home.html (accessed 21 November 2013).

Von Schomberg, R. (2011), Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information
and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields, European
Commission, European Research Area, Science in Society, available at: http://ec.europa.
eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/mep-rapport-2011_en (accessed
21 November 2013).

Weizenbaum, J. (1976), Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation,
Freeman, San Francisco, CA.

Whitehouse, D., Hilty, L., Patrignani, N. and van Lieshout, M. (2011), “Social accountability
and sustainability in the information society: perspectives on longterm responsibility”,
Notizie di Politeia – Rivista di Etica e Scelte Pubbliche, Anno XXVII No. 104.

Wiener, N. (1948), Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine,
2nd ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1965.

Wiener, N. (1950), The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society, 2nd ed. revised,
HoughtonMifflin and Doubleday Anchor, Boston, MA, 1954.

WSJ (1965), “Desk-top size computer is being sold by Olivetti for first time in US”, Wall Street
Journal, 15 October.

Corresponding author
Norberto Patrignani can be contacted at: norberto.patrignani@polito.it

JICES
12,2
92

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
I
nd
ia
na
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
B
lo
om
in
gt
on
A
t
09
:5
7
12
J
an
ua
ry
2
01
6
(P
T
)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2139%2Fssrn.2436399

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2139%2Fssrn.2436399

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2139%2Fssrn.2436399

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.14299%2Fijser.2010.01.002

This article has been cited by:

1. Thomas Taro Lennerfors, Per Fors, Jolanda van Rooijen. 2015. ICT and environmental sustainability in
a changing society. Information Technology & People 28:4, 758-774. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

2. Norberto Patrignani, Diane Whitehouse. 2015. Slow Tech: a roadmap for a good, clean and fair ICT.
Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 13:3/4, 268-282. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

3. Norberto Patrignani, Diane Whitehouse. 2015. The clean side of Slow Tech: an overview. Journal of
Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 13:1, 3-12. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
I
nd
ia
na
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
B
lo
om
in
gt
on
A
t
09
:5
7
12
J
an
ua
ry
2
01
6
(P
T
)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ITP-09-2014-0219

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/ITP-09-2014-0219

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/ITP-09-2014-0219

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JICES-05-2015-0014

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JICES-05-2015-0014

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/JICES-05-2015-0014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JICES-10-2014-0057

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JICES-10-2014-0057

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/JICES-10-2014-0057