Accounting infrastructures and the negotiation of social and economic returns under financialization: The case of impact investing

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q2 BUSINESS Competition & Change Pub Date : 2022-04-15 DOI:10.1177/10245294221085636
A. Guter-Sandu
{"title":"Accounting infrastructures and the negotiation of social and economic returns under financialization: The case of impact investing","authors":"A. Guter-Sandu","doi":"10.1177/10245294221085636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Impact investing has emerged as a topical subject-matter for scholars working at the intersection between finance and social policy. By and large, it is seen as a product of financialization: some argue that the social is colonized by financial actors and methods, others see it as a site where boundary work produces a state of value plurality in which competing values—social and financial—co-exist. This article takes the latter perspective further and unpacks the endogenous dynamics underpinning the creation of social values in impact investing programs. It analyzes how high-level organizations in the field prescribed specific social impact valuation processes and mechanisms for collecting, measuring, and reporting data about value creation. It argues that the social values circulating in the impact investing field emerge from the interplay between a wide array of stakeholders, impact investors included. The social impact accounting tools that capture them materialize therefore as sites of political battles and negotiations between stakeholders, with both emancipatory but also exploitative potential. This has consequences upon our understanding of how financialization travels and how the social dynamics underpinning accounting devices (re)draw boundaries between competing values and fields.","PeriodicalId":46999,"journal":{"name":"Competition & Change","volume":"27 1","pages":"205 - 223"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Competition & Change","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10245294221085636","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Impact investing has emerged as a topical subject-matter for scholars working at the intersection between finance and social policy. By and large, it is seen as a product of financialization: some argue that the social is colonized by financial actors and methods, others see it as a site where boundary work produces a state of value plurality in which competing values—social and financial—co-exist. This article takes the latter perspective further and unpacks the endogenous dynamics underpinning the creation of social values in impact investing programs. It analyzes how high-level organizations in the field prescribed specific social impact valuation processes and mechanisms for collecting, measuring, and reporting data about value creation. It argues that the social values circulating in the impact investing field emerge from the interplay between a wide array of stakeholders, impact investors included. The social impact accounting tools that capture them materialize therefore as sites of political battles and negotiations between stakeholders, with both emancipatory but also exploitative potential. This has consequences upon our understanding of how financialization travels and how the social dynamics underpinning accounting devices (re)draw boundaries between competing values and fields.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
金融化下的会计基础设施与社会经济回报谈判:以影响投资为例
影响力投资已经成为研究金融与社会政策交叉领域的学者的热门话题。总的来说,它被视为金融化的产物:一些人认为社会被金融行为者和金融方法所殖民,另一些人认为它是一个边界工作产生价值多元化状态的场所,在这种状态下,相互竞争的价值观——社会和金融——共存。本文进一步采用后一种观点,并揭示了影响投资项目中支持社会价值创造的内生动力。它分析了该领域的高级组织如何规定具体的社会影响评估过程和机制,以收集、测量和报告有关价值创造的数据。它认为,在影响投资领域中流通的社会价值来自包括影响投资者在内的广泛利益相关者之间的相互作用。因此,捕捉它们的社会影响会计工具成为利益相关者之间政治斗争和谈判的场所,既有解放的潜力,也有剥削的潜力。这影响了我们对金融化如何传播的理解,以及支撑会计设备的社会动态如何(重新)划定竞争价值和领域之间的界限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
37
期刊最新文献
Making “strategic autonomy” rhyme with “fiscal austerity?” Unresolved conflicts of (geo)economic ideas in EU infrastructure policy Erratum to “An international interface: Democratic planning in a global context” The regulator’s trilemma: On the limits of technocratic governance in digital markets The invisible leverage of the rich. Absentee debtors and their hedge funds Partial organization and economic coordination: The gradual re-organization of Finnish corporatism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1