Menu Expand

Das Transformationspotential des deutschen Sustainable Finance Diskurses: Eine Einschätzung auf Basis von Logiken und Frames

  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung
  4. Vol. 92, Issue 1
  5. pp. 11–36

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Dimmelmeier, A., Egerer, E. Das Transformationspotential des deutschen Sustainable Finance Diskurses: Eine Einschätzung auf Basis von Logiken und Frames. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 92(1), 11-36. https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.92.1.11
Dimmelmeier, Andreas and Egerer, Elsa "Das Transformationspotential des deutschen Sustainable Finance Diskurses: Eine Einschätzung auf Basis von Logiken und Frames" Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 92.1, 2023, 11-36. https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.92.1.11
Dimmelmeier, Andreas/Egerer, Elsa (2023): Das Transformationspotential des deutschen Sustainable Finance Diskurses: Eine Einschätzung auf Basis von Logiken und Frames, in: Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, vol. 92, iss. 1, 11-36, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.92.1.11
Format
Download

Das Transformationspotential des deutschen Sustainable Finance Diskurses: Eine Einschätzung auf Basis von Logiken und Frames

Dimmelmeier, Andreas | Egerer, Elsa

Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, Vol. 92 (2023), Iss. 1 : pp. 11–36

Preview Login to order (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.92.1.11
Language
German
Pages
26
Keywords

Pricing

Individual
€ 26.00 (incl. local VAT if applicable)

Author Details

Andreas Dimmelmeier, Ludwig Maximilians-Universität, München

  • Andreas Dimmelmeier ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter an Institut für Statistik der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, wo er zu Green Finance Daten, Indikatoren und Algorithmen (Green DIA) forscht. Er hat an der Copenhagen Business School und der University of Warwick in Politikwissenschaften promoviert. Seine Forschung befasst sich mit der Entstehung von Sustainable Finance als Politikfeld und mit der Rolle und Interaktion von Diskursen, Expert*innennetzwerken und sozio-technischen Infrastrukturen in diesem Prozess.
  • Email
  • Search in Google Scholar

Elsa Egerer, Cusanus Hochschule für Gesellschaftsgestaltung, Koblenz

  • Elsa Egerer ist Ökonomin (M. Sc.) und lehrt und forscht an der Cusanus Hochschule für Gesellschaftsgestaltung. Gegenwärtig liegt ihr Forschungsfokus auf der Rolle, die Finanzmärkte bei der Transformation zu einer post-fossilen Wirtschaft spielen. Die inhärente Instabilität der Finanzmärkte und die Frage nach einer nachhaltigen Ausgestaltung derselben beschäftigt sie seit der Globalen Finanzkrise und führte zu Ihrem Engagement für eine Plurale Ökonomik, u. a. im Netzwerk Plurale Ökonomik sowie an der Universität Siegen. Neben ihrem Forschungsschwerpunkt Finanzmärkte hat sie zu ökonomischer Bildung sowie Kommunalfinanzen publiziert.
  • Email
  • Search in Google Scholar

References

  1. Ahlström, H. und Monciardini, D. (2022): The Regulatory Dynamics of Sustainable Finance: Paradoxical Success and Limitations of EU Reforms. Journal of Business Ethics, 177(1), 193 – 212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04763-x.  Google Scholar
  2. Baker, A. (2010): Restraining regulatory capture? Anglo-America, crisis politics and trajectories of change in global financial governance. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944–), 3, 647.  Google Scholar
  3. Barman, E. (2015): Of Principle and Principal: Value Plurality in the Market of Impact Investing. Valuation Studies, 3(1), 9 – 44. https://doi.org/10.3384/VS.2001-5592.15319  Google Scholar
  4. Benford, R. D. und Snow, D. A. (2000): Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology; Palo Alto, 26, 611 – 639.  Google Scholar
  5. Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., Rigobon, R. und Sloan, M. (2019): Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings. 48.  Google Scholar
  6. Bergius, S. (2021): Sustainable-Finance-Strategie in der Kritik. Tagesspiegel Background Sustainable Finance.  Google Scholar
  7. Bolton, P., Després, M., da Silva, L. A. P., Samama, F. und Svartzman, R. (2020): The green swan.  Google Scholar
  8. Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, Bafin (2019): Merkblatt zum Umgang mit Nachhaltigkeitsrisiken. https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Merkblatt/dl_mb_Nachhaltigkeitsrisiken.html.  Google Scholar
  9. Bundesregierung (2021): Deutsche Sustainable Finance-Strategie. https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Downloads/Broschueren_Bestellservice/deutsche-sustainable-finance-strategie.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6.  Google Scholar
  10. Busch, T., Bruce-Clark, P., Derwall, J., Eccles, R., Hebb, T., Hoepner, A., Klein, C., Krueger, P., Paetzold, F., Scholtens, B. und Weber, O. (2021): Impact investments: a call for (re)orientation. SN Bus Econ 1, 33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-020-00033-6.  Google Scholar
  11. Caldecott, B., Clark, A., Harnett, E., Koskelo, K., Wilson, C. und Liu, F. (2022): Sustainable Finance and Transmission Mechanisms to the Real Economy (No. 22 – 04). Oxford Sustainable Finance Group, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford.  Google Scholar
  12. Carbon Brief (2022, April 5): In-depth Q&A: The IPCC’s sixth assessment on how to tackle climate change. Carbon Brief. https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-to-tackle-climate-change/.  Google Scholar
  13. Carney, M. (2015): Breaking the tragedy of the horizon—climate change and financial stability. Speech given at Lloyd’s of London, September 29.  Google Scholar
  14. Chang, H. J. (2002): Kicking away the ladder: development strategy in historical perspective. Anthem Press.  Google Scholar
  15. Chenet, H., Ryan-Collins, J. und van Lerven, F. (2021): Finance, climate-change and radical uncertainty: Towards a precautionary approach to financial policy. Ecological Economics, 183, 106957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106957.  Google Scholar
  16. Christophers, B. (2017): Climate Change and Financial Instability: Risk Disclosure and the Problematics of Neoliberal Governance. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 107(5), 1108 – 1127. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1293502.  Google Scholar
  17. Cowton, C. (1999): Playing by the rules: Ethical criteria at an ethical investment fund. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(1), 60 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8608.00126.  Google Scholar
  18. CPI (Climate Policy Initiative) (2021): Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2021.  Google Scholar
  19. Crespy, A. (2014): A dialogue of the deaf? Conflicting discourses over the EU and services liberalisation in the WTO. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16(1), 168 – 187.  Google Scholar
  20. Dafermos, Y., Gabor, D. und Michell, J. (2021): The Wall Street Consensus in pandemic times: What does it mean for climate-aligned development? Canadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue Canadienne d’études Du Développement, 42(1 – 2), 238 – 251.  Google Scholar
  21. Dietz, S., Bowen, A., Dixon, C. und Gradwell, P. (2016): ,Climate value at risk‘ of global financial assets. Nature Climate Change, 6(7), 676 – 679. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2972.  Google Scholar
  22. Dikau, S. und Volz, U. (2021): Central bank mandates, sustainability objectives and the promotion of green finance. Ecological Economics, 184, 107022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107022.  Google Scholar
  23. Dimmelmeier, A. (2021): Sustainable Finance as a Contested Concept: Tracing the Evolution of Five Frames Between 1998 and 2018. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021.1937916.  Google Scholar
  24. Dimmelmeier, A. (2020): The Role of Economic Ideas in Sustainable Finance: From Paradigms to Policy. Copenhagen Business School [Phd]. https://research.cbs.dk/en/publications/the-role-of-economic-ideas-in-sustainable-finance-from-paradigms-.  Google Scholar
  25. Dumas, C. und Louche, C. (2016): Collective Beliefs on Responsible Investment. Business & Society, 55(3), 427 – 457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315575327.  Google Scholar
  26. Egerer, E. und Reibestein, F. (2023): Sustainable Finance – Eine Kartographie. In: Egerer. E., Freydorf C.: Finance for the Planet – Perspektiven auf den Beitrag des Finanzsektors zur sozialökologischen Transformation. Cusanus Hochschule für Gesellschaftsgestaltung.  Google Scholar
  27. Elliot, L., Hines, C., Juniper, T., Lucas, C., Murphy, R., Pettifor, A., Secrett, C. und Simms, A. (2008): A Green New Deal: Joined-up policies to solve the triple crunch of the credit crisis, climate change and high oil prices. New Economics Foundation & Green New Deal Group.  Google Scholar
  28. Entman, R. M. (1993): Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.  Google Scholar
  29. Europäische Kommission (2021): Impact Assessment Report. Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European green bonds.  Google Scholar
  30. Europäische Kommission (2021): Renewed sustainable finance strategy and implementation of the action plan on financing sustainable growth. Retrieved November 14, 2022, from https://finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/renewed-sustainable-finance-strategy-and-implementation-action-plan-financing-sustainable-growth_en.  Google Scholar
  31. Europäische Zentralbank (2022): Walking the talk: Banks gearing up to manage risks from climate change and environmental degradation Results of the 2022 thematic review on climate-related and environmental risks Publications Office. https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/ecb/pub/pdf/ssm.thematicreviewcerreport112022~2eb322a79c.en.pdf.  Google Scholar
  32. Europäische Zentralbank. (2020): Guide on climate-related and environmental risks.  Google Scholar
  33. Fancy, T. (2021): The Secret Diary of a ,Sustainable Investor‘ – Part 1. Medium. https://medium.com/@sosofancy/the-secret-diary-of-a-sustainable-investor-part-1-70b6987fa139.  Google Scholar
  34. Forum Nachhaltige Geldanlagen, FNG. (2022): Marktbericht Nachhaltige Geldanlagen 2022. https://fng-marktbericht.org/fileadmin/Marktbericht/2022/FNG-Marktbericht_NG_2022-online.pdf.  Google Scholar
  35. Friedland, R. und Alford, R. (1991): ,Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions,‘ in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, ed. Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, 232 – 263. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  Google Scholar
  36. Gabor, D. (2021a): The Wall Street Consensus. Development and Change, 52(3), 429 – 459. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12645.  Google Scholar
  37. Gabor, D. (2021b): Revolution Without Revolutionaries: Interrogating the Return of Monetary Financing [Preprint]. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/ja9bk.  Google Scholar
  38. Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T. und Sorrell, S. (2017): The Socio-Technical Dynamics of Low-Carbon Transitions. Joule 1, 463 – 479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2017.09.018.  Google Scholar
  39. Global Sustainable Investment Alliance, GSIA. (2020): Global Sustainable Investment Review 2020.  Google Scholar
  40. Goffman, E. (1974): Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience (Northeastern University Press ed): Northeastern University Press.  Google Scholar
  41. Göpel, M. (2016): The Great Mindshift (Vol. 2). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43766-8.  Google Scholar
  42. Gümüsay, A. A. (2020): The Potential for Plurality and Prevalence of the Religious Institutional Logic. Business & Society, 59(5), 855 – 880. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317745634.  Google Scholar
  43. Hall, P. A. (1993): Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275. https://doi.org/10.2307/422246.  Google Scholar
  44. Hasselbalch, J. A. (2019): Framing brain drain: Between solidarity and skills in European labor mobility. Review of International Political Economy, 26(6), 1333 – 1360. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1626755.  Google Scholar
  45. Hawley, J. P. und Williams, A. T. (2007): Universal owners: Challenges and opportunities. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(3), 415 – 420.  Google Scholar
  46. Hirschman, D. und Berman, E. P. (2014): Do economists make policies? On the political effects of economics 1. Socio-Economic Review, 12(4), 779 – 811.  Google Scholar
  47. Hub for Sustainable Finance (2017): Thesen der Mitglieder des Steuerungskreises des Hub for Sustainable Finance für eine nachhaltige Finanzwirtschaft in Deutschland.  Google Scholar
  48. IPCC (2022): Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. IPCC AR6 WG III.  Google Scholar
  49. Kölbel, J. F., Heeb, F., Paetzold, F. und Busch, T. (2020): Can Sustainable Investing Save the World? Reviewing the Mechanisms of Investor Impact. Organization & Environment 33, 554 – 574. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026620919202.  Google Scholar
  50. Krahé, M. (2021): „Sustainable investments and sustainable development: an epistemological one-way street“, Report for the Royal Academy of Belgium, April 2021.  Google Scholar
  51. Machin, D. und Mayr, A. (2012): How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. SAGE.  Google Scholar
  52. Mazzucato, M. (2014): The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths (Revised edition). Anthem Press.  Google Scholar
  53. Meadows, D. (1999): Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. The Academy for Systems Change website: http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-pointsplaces-to-intervene-in-a-system.  Google Scholar
  54. Migliorelli, M. (2021): What Do We Mean by Sustainable Finance? Assessing Existing Frameworks and Policy Risks. Sustainability, 13(2), 975. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020975.  Google Scholar
  55. Miller, C., Davies, W., Barth, J., Hafele, J., Dirth, E., Korinek, L., Schulze, N., Kögel, N. und Kiberd, E. (2021): Methodology for Recovery Index of Transformative Change (RITC). ZOE Institute for Future-fit Economies : Cologne.  Google Scholar
  56. Mooney, A. und Flood, C. (2021, August 31): DWS probes spark fears of greenwashing claims across investment industry. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/a3d6a8d1-0800-41c9-ab92-c0d9fce1f6e1.  Google Scholar
  57. Network for Greening the Financial System, NGFS (2019): First comprehensive Report. A call to action: Climate Change as a source of financial risk. April 2019. https://www.ngfs.net/en/first-comprehensive-report-call-action.  Google Scholar
  58. Newell, P., Paterson, M. und Craig, M. (2021): The Politics of Green Transformations: An Introduction to the Special Section. New Political Economy, 26(6), 903 – 906. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2020.1810215.  Google Scholar
  59. Paus, Lisa (2021): Vergleich der Empfehlungen des SF Beirats mit der SF Strategie der Bundesregierung. URL https://lisa-paus.de/2021/pm-sustainable-finance-strategie-der-bundesregierung-das-prinzip-hoffnung-ist-keine-strategie/ (abgerufen am 21. 11. 2022).  Google Scholar
  60. Purdy, J., Ansari, S. und Gray, B. (2019): Are Logics Enough? Framing as an Alternative Tool for Understanding Institutional Meaning Making. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(4), 409 – 419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617724233.  Google Scholar
  61. Rein, M. und Schön, D. (1993): Reframing Policy Discourse. In Fischer, F. und Forester, J. (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (145 – 166).  Google Scholar
  62. Rethel, L. (2011): Whose legitimacy? Islamic finance and the global financial order. Review of International Political Economy, 18(1), 75 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290902983999.  Google Scholar
  63. Schoenmaker, P. D. (2017): Investing for the Common Good: A sustainable finance framework. BRUEGEL. Working paper.  Google Scholar
  64. Schultz, A. und Senn, M. (2021): Studie zu Fonds: Greenwashing im großen Stil. (n.d.). Finanzwende Recherche. Retrieved November 14, 2022, from https://www.finanzwende-recherche.de/unsere-themen/nachhaltige-finanzmaerkte/greenwashing-im-grossen-stil/.  Google Scholar
  65. Seabrooke, L. und Stenström, A. (2022): Professional ecologies in European sustainable finance. Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12739.  Google Scholar
  66. Smoleńska, A. und van ’t Klooster, J. (2022): A Risky Bet: Climate Change and the EU’s Microprudential Framework for Banks. Journal of Financial Regulation, 8(1), 51 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1093/jfr/fjac002.  Google Scholar
  67. Sparkes R. (2002): Socially Responsible Investment: A Global Revolution. Chicester: JohnWiley.  Google Scholar
  68. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C. A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M., Persson, L. M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B. und Sorlin, S. (2015): Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855 – 1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855.  Google Scholar
  69. Strauß, N. (2021): Framing Sustainable Finance: A Critical Analysis of Op-eds in the Financial Times. International Journal of Business Communication, 23294884211025984. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211025982.  Google Scholar
  70. Sustainable Finance Beirat (2021): Shifting the Trillions: Ein nachhaltiges Finanzsystem für die Große Transformation.  Google Scholar
  71. Thomann, E., Lieberherr, E. und Ingold, K. (2016): Torn between state and market: Private policy implementation and conflicting institutional logics*. Policy and Society, 35(1), 57 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.12.001  Google Scholar
  72. Thornton, P. H. und Ocasio, W. (2008): Institutional logics. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, 840(2008), 99 – 128.  Google Scholar
  73. United Nations. UN (2015): Übereinkommen von Paris.  Google Scholar
  74. United Nations Environment Programme. UNEP (2022, October 21): Emissions Gap Report 2022. UNEP – UN Environment Programme. http://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022.  Google Scholar
  75. UN Vollversammlung (2015): Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015: Transformation our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainabile Development. esolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015: Transformation our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainabile Development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.  Google Scholar
  76. Vanhala, L. und Hestbaekm, C. (2016): ,Framing Climate Change Loss and Damage in UNFCCC Negotiations‘, Global Environmental Politics 16, no. 4, 111 – 29, https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00379.  Google Scholar
  77. Wahlström, M., Wennerhag, M. und Rootes, C. (2013): Framing „The Climate Issue“: Patterns of Participation and Prognostic Frames among Climate Summit Protesters. Global Environmental Politics, 13(4), 101 – 122. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00200.  Google Scholar
  78. Wilkens, D. M. und Klein, D. C. (2021): Welche transformativen Wirkungen können nachhaltige Geldanlagen durch Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher haben? Gutachten für den Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband.  Google Scholar
  79. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen, WBGU (2011): Transformation zur Nachhaltigkeit. WBGU.  Google Scholar
  80. Yan, S., Almandoz, J. (John) und Ferraro, F. (2021): The Impact of Logic (In)Compatibility: Green Investing, State Policy, and Corporate Environmental Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(4), 903 – 944. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392211005756.  Google Scholar
  81. Yan, S., Ferraro, F. und Almandoz, J. (2019): The Rise of Socially Responsible Investment Funds: The Paradoxical Role of the Financial Logic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(2), 466 – 501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839218773324.  Google Scholar
  82. Ahlström, H. und Monciardini, D. (2022): The Regulatory Dynamics of Sustainable Finance: Paradoxical Success and Limitations of EU Reforms. Journal of Business Ethics, 177(1), 193 – 212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04763-x.  Google Scholar
  83. Baker, A. (2010): Restraining regulatory capture? Anglo-America, crisis politics and trajectories of change in global financial governance. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944–), 3, 647.  Google Scholar
  84. Barman, E. (2015): Of Principle and Principal: Value Plurality in the Market of Impact Investing. Valuation Studies, 3(1), 9 – 44. https://doi.org/10.3384/VS.2001-5592.15319  Google Scholar
  85. Benford, R. D. und Snow, D. A. (2000): Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology; Palo Alto, 26, 611 – 639.  Google Scholar
  86. Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., Rigobon, R. und Sloan, M. (2019): Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings. 48.  Google Scholar
  87. Bergius, S. (2021): Sustainable-Finance-Strategie in der Kritik. Tagesspiegel Background Sustainable Finance.  Google Scholar
  88. Bolton, P., Després, M., da Silva, L. A. P., Samama, F. und Svartzman, R. (2020): The green swan.  Google Scholar
  89. Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, Bafin (2019): Merkblatt zum Umgang mit Nachhaltigkeitsrisiken. https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Merkblatt/dl_mb_Nachhaltigkeitsrisiken.html.  Google Scholar
  90. Bundesregierung (2021): Deutsche Sustainable Finance-Strategie. https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Downloads/Broschueren_Bestellservice/deutsche-sustainable-finance-strategie.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6.  Google Scholar
  91. Busch, T., Bruce-Clark, P., Derwall, J., Eccles, R., Hebb, T., Hoepner, A., Klein, C., Krueger, P., Paetzold, F., Scholtens, B. und Weber, O. (2021): Impact investments: a call for (re)orientation. SN Bus Econ 1, 33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-020-00033-6.  Google Scholar
  92. Caldecott, B., Clark, A., Harnett, E., Koskelo, K., Wilson, C. und Liu, F. (2022): Sustainable Finance and Transmission Mechanisms to the Real Economy (No. 22 – 04). Oxford Sustainable Finance Group, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford.  Google Scholar
  93. Carbon Brief (2022, April 5): In-depth Q&A: The IPCC’s sixth assessment on how to tackle climate change. Carbon Brief. https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-to-tackle-climate-change/.  Google Scholar
  94. Carney, M. (2015): Breaking the tragedy of the horizon—climate change and financial stability. Speech given at Lloyd’s of London, September 29.  Google Scholar
  95. Chang, H. J. (2002): Kicking away the ladder: development strategy in historical perspective. Anthem Press.  Google Scholar
  96. Chenet, H., Ryan-Collins, J. und van Lerven, F. (2021): Finance, climate-change and radical uncertainty: Towards a precautionary approach to financial policy. Ecological Economics, 183, 106957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106957.  Google Scholar
  97. Christophers, B. (2017): Climate Change and Financial Instability: Risk Disclosure and the Problematics of Neoliberal Governance. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 107(5), 1108 – 1127. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1293502.  Google Scholar
  98. Cowton, C. (1999): Playing by the rules: Ethical criteria at an ethical investment fund. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(1), 60 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8608.00126.  Google Scholar
  99. CPI (Climate Policy Initiative) (2021): Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2021.  Google Scholar
  100. Crespy, A. (2014): A dialogue of the deaf? Conflicting discourses over the EU and services liberalisation in the WTO. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16(1), 168 – 187.  Google Scholar
  101. Dafermos, Y., Gabor, D. und Michell, J. (2021): The Wall Street Consensus in pandemic times: What does it mean for climate-aligned development? Canadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue Canadienne d’études Du Développement, 42(1 – 2), 238 – 251.  Google Scholar
  102. Dietz, S., Bowen, A., Dixon, C. und Gradwell, P. (2016): ,Climate value at risk‘ of global financial assets. Nature Climate Change, 6(7), 676 – 679. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2972.  Google Scholar
  103. Dikau, S. und Volz, U. (2021): Central bank mandates, sustainability objectives and the promotion of green finance. Ecological Economics, 184, 107022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107022.  Google Scholar
  104. Dimmelmeier, A. (2021): Sustainable Finance as a Contested Concept: Tracing the Evolution of Five Frames Between 1998 and 2018. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021.1937916.  Google Scholar
  105. Dimmelmeier, A. (2020): The Role of Economic Ideas in Sustainable Finance: From Paradigms to Policy. Copenhagen Business School [Phd]. https://research.cbs.dk/en/publications/the-role-of-economic-ideas-in-sustainable-finance-from-paradigms-.  Google Scholar
  106. Dumas, C. und Louche, C. (2016): Collective Beliefs on Responsible Investment. Business & Society, 55(3), 427 – 457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315575327.  Google Scholar
  107. Egerer, E. und Reibestein, F. (2023): Sustainable Finance – Eine Kartographie. In: Egerer. E., Freydorf C.: Finance for the Planet – Perspektiven auf den Beitrag des Finanzsektors zur sozialökologischen Transformation. Cusanus Hochschule für Gesellschaftsgestaltung.  Google Scholar
  108. Elliot, L., Hines, C., Juniper, T., Lucas, C., Murphy, R., Pettifor, A., Secrett, C. und Simms, A. (2008): A Green New Deal: Joined-up policies to solve the triple crunch of the credit crisis, climate change and high oil prices. New Economics Foundation & Green New Deal Group.  Google Scholar
  109. Entman, R. M. (1993): Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.  Google Scholar
  110. Europäische Kommission (2021): Impact Assessment Report. Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European green bonds.  Google Scholar
  111. Europäische Kommission (2021): Renewed sustainable finance strategy and implementation of the action plan on financing sustainable growth. Retrieved November 14, 2022, from https://finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/renewed-sustainable-finance-strategy-and-implementation-action-plan-financing-sustainable-growth_en.  Google Scholar
  112. Europäische Zentralbank (2022): Walking the talk: Banks gearing up to manage risks from climate change and environmental degradation Results of the 2022 thematic review on climate-related and environmental risks Publications Office. https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/ecb/pub/pdf/ssm.thematicreviewcerreport112022~2eb322a79c.en.pdf.  Google Scholar
  113. Europäische Zentralbank. (2020): Guide on climate-related and environmental risks.  Google Scholar
  114. Fancy, T. (2021): The Secret Diary of a ,Sustainable Investor‘ – Part 1. Medium. https://medium.com/@sosofancy/the-secret-diary-of-a-sustainable-investor-part-1-70b6987fa139.  Google Scholar
  115. Forum Nachhaltige Geldanlagen, FNG. (2022): Marktbericht Nachhaltige Geldanlagen 2022. https://fng-marktbericht.org/fileadmin/Marktbericht/2022/FNG-Marktbericht_NG_2022-online.pdf.  Google Scholar
  116. Friedland, R. und Alford, R. (1991): ,Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions,‘ in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, ed. Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, 232 – 263. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  Google Scholar
  117. Gabor, D. (2021a): The Wall Street Consensus. Development and Change, 52(3), 429 – 459. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12645.  Google Scholar
  118. Gabor, D. (2021b): Revolution Without Revolutionaries: Interrogating the Return of Monetary Financing [Preprint]. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/ja9bk.  Google Scholar
  119. Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T. und Sorrell, S. (2017): The Socio-Technical Dynamics of Low-Carbon Transitions. Joule 1, 463 – 479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2017.09.018.  Google Scholar
  120. Global Sustainable Investment Alliance, GSIA. (2020): Global Sustainable Investment Review 2020.  Google Scholar
  121. Goffman, E. (1974): Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience (Northeastern University Press ed): Northeastern University Press.  Google Scholar
  122. Göpel, M. (2016): The Great Mindshift (Vol. 2). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43766-8.  Google Scholar
  123. Gümüsay, A. A. (2020): The Potential for Plurality and Prevalence of the Religious Institutional Logic. Business & Society, 59(5), 855 – 880. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317745634.  Google Scholar
  124. Hall, P. A. (1993): Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275. https://doi.org/10.2307/422246.  Google Scholar
  125. Hasselbalch, J. A. (2019): Framing brain drain: Between solidarity and skills in European labor mobility. Review of International Political Economy, 26(6), 1333 – 1360. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1626755.  Google Scholar
  126. Hawley, J. P. und Williams, A. T. (2007): Universal owners: Challenges and opportunities. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(3), 415 – 420.  Google Scholar
  127. Hirschman, D. und Berman, E. P. (2014): Do economists make policies? On the political effects of economics 1. Socio-Economic Review, 12(4), 779 – 811.  Google Scholar
  128. Hub for Sustainable Finance (2017): Thesen der Mitglieder des Steuerungskreises des Hub for Sustainable Finance für eine nachhaltige Finanzwirtschaft in Deutschland.  Google Scholar
  129. IPCC (2022): Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. IPCC AR6 WG III.  Google Scholar
  130. Kölbel, J. F., Heeb, F., Paetzold, F. und Busch, T. (2020): Can Sustainable Investing Save the World? Reviewing the Mechanisms of Investor Impact. Organization & Environment 33, 554 – 574. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026620919202.  Google Scholar
  131. Krahé, M. (2021): „Sustainable investments and sustainable development: an epistemological one-way street“, Report for the Royal Academy of Belgium, April 2021.  Google Scholar
  132. Machin, D. und Mayr, A. (2012): How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. SAGE.  Google Scholar
  133. Mazzucato, M. (2014): The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths (Revised edition). Anthem Press.  Google Scholar
  134. Meadows, D. (1999): Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. The Academy for Systems Change website: http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-pointsplaces-to-intervene-in-a-system.  Google Scholar
  135. Migliorelli, M. (2021): What Do We Mean by Sustainable Finance? Assessing Existing Frameworks and Policy Risks. Sustainability, 13(2), 975. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020975.  Google Scholar
  136. Miller, C., Davies, W., Barth, J., Hafele, J., Dirth, E., Korinek, L., Schulze, N., Kögel, N. und Kiberd, E. (2021): Methodology for Recovery Index of Transformative Change (RITC). ZOE Institute for Future-fit Economies : Cologne.  Google Scholar
  137. Mooney, A. und Flood, C. (2021, August 31): DWS probes spark fears of greenwashing claims across investment industry. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/a3d6a8d1-0800-41c9-ab92-c0d9fce1f6e1.  Google Scholar
  138. Network for Greening the Financial System, NGFS (2019): First comprehensive Report. A call to action: Climate Change as a source of financial risk. April 2019. https://www.ngfs.net/en/first-comprehensive-report-call-action.  Google Scholar
  139. Newell, P., Paterson, M. und Craig, M. (2021): The Politics of Green Transformations: An Introduction to the Special Section. New Political Economy, 26(6), 903 – 906. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2020.1810215.  Google Scholar
  140. Paus, Lisa (2021): Vergleich der Empfehlungen des SF Beirats mit der SF Strategie der Bundesregierung. URL https://lisa-paus.de/2021/pm-sustainable-finance-strategie-der-bundesregierung-das-prinzip-hoffnung-ist-keine-strategie/ (abgerufen am 21. 11. 2022).  Google Scholar
  141. Purdy, J., Ansari, S. und Gray, B. (2019): Are Logics Enough? Framing as an Alternative Tool for Understanding Institutional Meaning Making. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(4), 409 – 419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617724233.  Google Scholar
  142. Rein, M. und Schön, D. (1993): Reframing Policy Discourse. In Fischer, F. und Forester, J. (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (145 – 166).  Google Scholar
  143. Rethel, L. (2011): Whose legitimacy? Islamic finance and the global financial order. Review of International Political Economy, 18(1), 75 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290902983999.  Google Scholar
  144. Schoenmaker, P. D. (2017): Investing for the Common Good: A sustainable finance framework. BRUEGEL. Working paper.  Google Scholar
  145. Schultz, A. und Senn, M. (2021): Studie zu Fonds: Greenwashing im großen Stil. (n.d.). Finanzwende Recherche. Retrieved November 14, 2022, from https://www.finanzwende-recherche.de/unsere-themen/nachhaltige-finanzmaerkte/greenwashing-im-grossen-stil/.  Google Scholar
  146. Seabrooke, L. und Stenström, A. (2022): Professional ecologies in European sustainable finance. Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12739.  Google Scholar
  147. Smoleńska, A. und van ’t Klooster, J. (2022): A Risky Bet: Climate Change and the EU’s Microprudential Framework for Banks. Journal of Financial Regulation, 8(1), 51 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1093/jfr/fjac002.  Google Scholar
  148. Sparkes R. (2002): Socially Responsible Investment: A Global Revolution. Chicester: JohnWiley.  Google Scholar
  149. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C. A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M., Persson, L. M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B. und Sorlin, S. (2015): Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855 – 1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855.  Google Scholar
  150. Strauß, N. (2021): Framing Sustainable Finance: A Critical Analysis of Op-eds in the Financial Times. International Journal of Business Communication, 23294884211025984. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211025982.  Google Scholar
  151. Sustainable Finance Beirat (2021): Shifting the Trillions: Ein nachhaltiges Finanzsystem für die Große Transformation.  Google Scholar
  152. Thomann, E., Lieberherr, E. und Ingold, K. (2016): Torn between state and market: Private policy implementation and conflicting institutional logics*. Policy and Society, 35(1), 57 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.12.001  Google Scholar
  153. Thornton, P. H. und Ocasio, W. (2008): Institutional logics. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, 840(2008), 99 – 128.  Google Scholar
  154. United Nations. UN (2015): Übereinkommen von Paris.  Google Scholar
  155. United Nations Environment Programme. UNEP (2022, October 21): Emissions Gap Report 2022. UNEP – UN Environment Programme. http://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022.  Google Scholar
  156. UN Vollversammlung (2015): Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015: Transformation our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainabile Development. esolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015: Transformation our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainabile Development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.  Google Scholar
  157. Vanhala, L. und Hestbaekm, C. (2016): ,Framing Climate Change Loss and Damage in UNFCCC Negotiations‘, Global Environmental Politics 16, no. 4, 111 – 29, https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00379.  Google Scholar
  158. Wahlström, M., Wennerhag, M. und Rootes, C. (2013): Framing „The Climate Issue“: Patterns of Participation and Prognostic Frames among Climate Summit Protesters. Global Environmental Politics, 13(4), 101 – 122. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00200.  Google Scholar
  159. Wilkens, D. M. und Klein, D. C. (2021): Welche transformativen Wirkungen können nachhaltige Geldanlagen durch Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher haben? Gutachten für den Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband.  Google Scholar
  160. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen, WBGU (2011): Transformation zur Nachhaltigkeit. WBGU.  Google Scholar
  161. Yan, S., Almandoz, J. (John) und Ferraro, F. (2021): The Impact of Logic (In)Compatibility: Green Investing, State Policy, and Corporate Environmental Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(4), 903 – 944. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392211005756.  Google Scholar
  162. Yan, S., Ferraro, F. und Almandoz, J. (2019): The Rise of Socially Responsible Investment Funds: The Paradoxical Role of the Financial Logic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(2), 466 – 501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839218773324.  Google Scholar

Abstract

Against the backdrop of a simultaneous dynamization of sustainable finance and intensifying environmental and social crises, the following article carries out an analysis of the transformation potential of the sustainable finance discourse that is present in German governance discussions. The discourse is illustrated through a content analysis of the German government’s Sustainable Finance Strategy and the final report of the first Sustainable Finance Advisory Council. In order to evaluate the transformation potential, a frame analysis is conducted. Subsequently, the analyzed frames are linked to the concept of institutional logics, which allows for an assessment of their transformation potential. The article comes to the conclusion that the governance discourse on sustainable finance in Germany is dominated by an integrative frame, which describes sustainable finance per se as desirable, and a frame, which emphasizes financial risks. With regard to institutional logics, a state logic that is motivated by location specific competitiveness policies and a financial market logic dominate. This is consistent with the interpretation that the mainstreaming of sustainable finance is accompanied by an increasingly financialized discourse that derives its goals largely from its own system logics, i. e. those inherent in the financial system. Based on the analysis, the article concludes that the transformation potential of the assessed governance discourse on Sustainable Finance in Germany is relatively low.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Andreas Dimmelmeier und Elsa Egerer - Das Transformationspotential des deutschen Sustainable Finance Diskurses: Eine Einschätzung auf Basis von Logiken und Frames 1
1 Systematisierung der Bedeutungen von Sustainable Finance anhand von Logiken und Frames 3
1.1 Wie Logiken Sustainable Finance als Mittel definieren und von wem sie institutionellvertreten werden 4
1.2 Zum Transformationspotential verschiedener Logiken 5
1.3 Frames als Analyseinstrumente für den SF Diskurs 8
1.4 Logiken, Frames und Transformationspotentiale: Der Versuch einer Synthese 9
2 Eine empirische Analyse des deutschen Sustainable Finance Diskurses anhandexemplarischer Beispiele 11
2.1 Die Sustainable Finance Strategie der Bundesregierung 13
2.2 Besonderheiten des SF Diskurses in der SFS und im SFBB Abschlussbericht 17
2.3 Der deutsche Sustainable Finance Diskurs aus der Perspektive von Logiken undTransformationspotential 17
3 Abschließende Betrachtungen und weiterführende Forschungsfragen 19
Literaturverzeichnis 20

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.