Der Beitrag fokussiert aus einer soziologischen Perspektive auf die vielfältige Einbettung der die historischen Gärten verwaltenden Organisationen und unterscheidet zwischen kognitiver, kultureller, struktureller und politischer Embeddedness. Mit Methoden der qualitativen Sozialforschung und auf Basis eines explorativ erhobenen Interviewmaterials zeigen wir, dass die Resilienzstrategien der Gärten im Umgang mit (Klima-)Risiken auch von ihrer jeweiligen Einbettung abhängen. ; This article focuses from the sociological angle on the diverse embeddedness of the organisations that manage historic gardens and distinguishes between cognitive, cultural, structural and political embeddedness. Using social research methods and explorative interview material we demonstrate that the resilience strategies of gardens when dealing with the (climate) risk likewise depend on their respective embeddedness.
Die jüngste Finanzkrise hat die Einbettung der Finanzmärkte in soziale Strukturen offengelegt und damit eine Debatte über den Sinn und Zweck von Finanzmärkten ermöglicht. In diesem Beitrag zeigen wir auf, wie zivilgesellschaftliche Akteure den Finanzmarkt ins Visier nehmen, um sozialen Wandel anzustoßen. Wir beleuchten die Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede zwischen Occupy Wall Street, dem nachhaltigen Investieren und der Divestment-Bewegung. Während Occupy Wall Street die herrschende soziale Ungleichheit und den Einfluss der Finanzmärkte kritisierte, versucht das nachhaltige Investieren die Entscheidungsmöglichkeiten auf den Finanzmärkten dauerhaft zu verändern. Die Divestment-Bewegung zielt dagegen darauf ab, über zahlreiche Kampagnen die Aufmerksamkeit der Märkte sowie der Politik für den Klimawandel und dessen Folgen zu gewinnen.
AbstractThis empirical study explores the financialization of social sustainability driven by sustainability accounting and reporting initiatives (SARIs). Since no globally accepted definition of what social sustainability encompasses exists, the paper asks how social sustainability is translated into the financial market language by SARIs as they provide standards for disclosing corporate non-financial performance and promote their concepts of social sustainability. The paper uses a two-step qualitative content analysis. First, it operationalizes social sustainability based on the empirical data of six sustainability rating agencies. Second, this operationalization is compared with the concepts created by three SARIs. The paper shows significant differences between the concepts of the SARIs and the rating agencies. While the rating agencies altogether interpret social sustainability with 83 distinct aspects, the SARIs, although differently created, use significant reduced concepts where 20% of these aspects are absent. The result of this financialization process could be a simplified and financially determined concept of social sustainability within die socially discourse. The research is limited to social sustainability and its financialization by SARIs. Individual indicators and their way or intensity to capture aspects of social sustainability were not part of the research interest. Further research should investigate the economic and the ecological pillars of sustainability as well as the usage of such financialized concepts within the society and especially by corporations. The paper unfolds the arbitrariness of operationalizing a qualitative phenomenon like social sustainability through the financial system. It discloses the need for looking at the mechanisms behind such processes and at the interests of the actors behind the frameworks. The paper reveals the financialization process driven by SARIs and demonstrates its simplifying effects on the concept of social sustainability. Furthermore, the paper shows that SARIs as metrics for non-financial aspects are troubled with a lack of transparency and a lack of convergence.
In this article, we provide a broad picture of the adaptation of economic classification technologies that were originally used to provide financial information and to classify companies according to their financial performance. The same approach is now available for the benefit of sustainability investors. The adaptation of such financial classification technologies to account for questions of sustainability has been engendered by the growing importance of financial markets and by the recognition of sustainability, as a guiding concept for contemporary societies. Since credit ratings, as well as financial accounting and reporting, are established measures for financial performance, they have inspired the development of similar classification systems for sustainability performance, and can be used to accommodate sustainability investors. We outline the adaptation of financial classification systems to the issue of sustainability and we compare the development and institutionalization, especially as it relates to the current market structure of classification systems in the financial markets, based on both financial and sustainability data. In the second part of this paper we compare the interpretation of social sustainability by three different sustainability accounting and reporting initiatives, in order to illustrate the heterogeneity of the available data applicable to subsequent classification. We point out that the operationalization of the three initiatives differs in respect to the nature and the extent of information requested. While accounting frameworks require relatively few quantitative outcomes, reporting frameworks demand more extensive quantitative and qualitative data. Finally, we discuss the opportunities and difficulties associated with the adaptation of classification systems from the field of finance to the field of sustainability.
