The financial community does not seem to have shifted to greater sustainability, despite increasing awareness and concerns around social and environmental issues. This article provides insights to help understand why. Building on responsible investment data from the U.K. financial press between 1982 and 2010, the authors examine the collective beliefs which financial actors rely on to take decisions under uncertainty, as a way of understanding the status of and implications for RI mainstreaming. The analysis of collective beliefs through five periods (...) of RI leads us to define two theoretical dimensions—justifying RI and practicing RI—that characterize how mainstream actors collectively make sense of RI. The authors’ analysis reveals that the RI collective beliefs currently do not provide a favorable environment for RI mainstreaming and need to be taken into account when discussing the value of sustainability. (shrink)

In a recent contribution to this journal, Arjaliès (J Bus Ethics 92:57—78, 2010) suggests that the emergence of socially responsible investment (SRI) in France can be best described as a social movement with a collective identity that aimed to challenge the dominant logic of the financial market. Such an account is at odds with a body of empirical studies that approaches SRI in the French context as a process of market creation led by loosely coordinated actors with contradictory and conflicting (...) interests and values, who have mainly complied with—rather than opposed—the existing dominant financial logic of the asset-management field. In this comment, we build on this prior research to contest Arjaliès' perspective on both theoretical and empirical grounds, with the aim of highlighting the shortcomings of conflating social movements and other forms of collective actions in understanding the building of new markets in organization theory and SRI studies. We contend that in mistaking for social movement forms of collective actions that underpin the emergence of markets, scholars of organization theory may confuse distinct mechanisms in their explanation of SRI emergence across countries, overlook the complex dynamics and interactions of markets and social movements, and, most importantly, fail to evaluate the real political significance of SRI as an empirical phenomenon. We propose that future research on SRI distinguishes carefully "social-movement research as a theoretical framework" from "social movement as an empirical phenomenon" in order to avoid such drawbacks while benefiting from recent advances in social-movement research. (shrink)

This study investigates the institutional work that underlies the diffusion of responsible investment (RI) and enhances its adaptation to local settings. Building on institutional theory and actor–network theory, we advance the concept of contextualization work to describe the institutional work that sustains RI glocalization. Empirical data from two case studies highlight how entrepreneurial actors imported the notion of RI from the US to France and Québec. Our findings uncover three types of contextualization work—filtering, repurposing, and coupling—that sustain RI glocalization, and (...) show how actors employed them in both settings to overcome the lack of technical, cultural, or political fit between the imported practice and their local context. Our results explain how divergent glocalized versions of RI are developed and adapted through contextualization work. Last, we discuss how our repertoire of contextualization work can account for local forms of a global concept and the uneven pattern of its diffusion. (shrink)

This study discusses how social movements can influence economic systems. Employing a political-cultural approach to markets, it purports that 'compromise movements' can help change existing institutions by proposing new ones. This study argues in favor of the role of social movements in reforming economic institutions. More precisely, Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) movements can help bring SRI concerns into financial institutions. A study of how the French SRI movement has been able to change entrenched institutional logics of the French asset management (...) sector provides wide-ranging support for these arguments. Empirical findings are drawn from a longitudinal case study (1997-2009), based on participative observation, interviews and documentary evidence. Implications for research on social movements, institutional change and SRI are outlined. Lastly, the study provides practitioners with some theoretical keys to understand the pros and cons of 'SRI labels'. (shrink)

Using the mainstreaming of socially responsible investing as our empirical context, we show that as the divestment movement in the late twentieth century got institutionalized by being incorporated as a business strategy into more mainstream financial instruments like mutual funds, the prior meanings and categorical definition of ethical investing became ambiguous due to fuzzy boundaries, duality of virtue inherent in the portfolio targets, and exercise of discretion by portfolio managers. We find that increased heterogeneity in standards led to greater ambiguity (...) about who belongs to a category, and fund managers adopted distinct measures-based, values-based and expertise-based approaches to resolve this ambiguity. One consequence of such ambiguity is that individual self-expression, self-consciousness and agency that are central in such movements become appropriated by discretionary and meaning-making work at the institutional level. (shrink)

Since its inception in 2006, the United Nations-backed Principles for Responsible Investment have grown to over 1300 signatories representing over $45 trillion. This growth is not slowing down. In this paper, we argue that there is a set of attributes which make the PRI salient as a stakeholder and its claim to sign the six PRI important to institutional investors. We use Mitchell et al.’s theoretical framework of stakeholder salience, as extended by Gifford. We use as evidence confidential data from (...) the annual survey of signatories carried out by the PRI in a 5-year period between 2007 and 2011. The findings highlight pragmatic and organizational legitimacy, normative and utilitarian power, and management values as the attributes that contribute most to the salience of the PRI as a stakeholder. (shrink)