Deliberative boundary work for sustainable finance: Insights from a European Commission expert group

IF 4.9 1区管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT

Organization Studies Pub Date : 2023-06-24 DOI:10.1177/01708406231185972

S. Giamporcaro, Jean‐Pascal Gond, C. Louche

{"title":"Deliberative boundary work for sustainable finance: Insights from a European Commission expert group","authors":"S. Giamporcaro, Jean‐Pascal Gond, C. Louche","doi":"10.1177/01708406231185972","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To explain how multistakeholder groups organize democratic deliberations about complex sustainability issues, organizational scholars have focused on the key role of deliberative capacity, which encompasses the dimensions of inclusiveness, authenticity, and consequentiality. However, the tensions inherent to the search of these three dimensions have been overlooked. In this paper, we argue that focusing on how spaces for deliberation are designed can help one understand how to manage such tensions. We identified the boundary work practices that shape the design of deliberative spaces and generate deliberative capacity properties in a high-level expert group (HLEG) launched by the European Commission about sustainable finance regulation. Our results show how these boundary work practices help balance deliberative tensions. We advance deliberation studies by conceptualizing deliberative boundary work, explaining how deliberative capacity is spatially generated, and showing how deliberative tensions are balanced. We also contribute to boundary work theory by making explicit the deliberative nature of configuring boundary work and showing its relevancy to regulatory settings.","PeriodicalId":48423,"journal":{"name":"Organization Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organization Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406231185972","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

To explain how multistakeholder groups organize democratic deliberations about complex sustainability issues, organizational scholars have focused on the key role of deliberative capacity, which encompasses the dimensions of inclusiveness, authenticity, and consequentiality. However, the tensions inherent to the search of these three dimensions have been overlooked. In this paper, we argue that focusing on how spaces for deliberation are designed can help one understand how to manage such tensions. We identified the boundary work practices that shape the design of deliberative spaces and generate deliberative capacity properties in a high-level expert group (HLEG) launched by the European Commission about sustainable finance regulation. Our results show how these boundary work practices help balance deliberative tensions. We advance deliberation studies by conceptualizing deliberative boundary work, explaining how deliberative capacity is spatially generated, and showing how deliberative tensions are balanced. We also contribute to boundary work theory by making explicit the deliberative nature of configuring boundary work and showing its relevancy to regulatory settings.

查看原文本刊更多论文

可持续金融的审议边界工作:来自欧盟委员会专家组的见解

为了解释多方利益相关者团体是如何就复杂的可持续性问题组织民主审议的，组织学者关注审议能力的关键作用，其中包括包容性、真实性和后果性的维度。然而，对这三个维度的探索所固有的紧张关系却被忽视了。在本文中，我们认为，关注如何设计审议空间可以帮助人们理解如何管理这种紧张关系。我们在欧盟委员会发起的关于可持续金融监管的高级别专家组(HLEG)中确定了塑造审议空间设计和产生审议能力属性的边界工作实践。我们的研究结果表明，这些边界工作实践如何帮助平衡审议紧张。我们通过概念化协商边界工作，解释协商能力如何在空间上产生，并展示协商紧张如何平衡来推进协商研究。我们还通过明确配置边界工作的审议性质并显示其与监管设置的相关性，为边界工作理论做出了贡献。

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Organization Studies MANAGEMENT-

CiteScore

11.50

自引率

16.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Organisation Studies (OS) aims to promote the understanding of organizations, organizing and the organized, and the social relevance of that understanding. It encourages the interplay between theorizing and empirical research, in the belief that they should be mutually informative. It is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal which is open to contributions of high quality, from any perspective relevant to the field and from any country. Organization Studies is, in particular, a supranational journal which gives special attention to national and cultural similarities and differences worldwide. This is reflected by its international editorial board and publisher and its collaboration with EGOS, the European Group for Organizational Studies. OS publishes papers that fully or partly draw on empirical data to make their contribution to organization theory and practice. Thus, OS welcomes work that in any form draws on empirical work to make strong theoretical and empirical contributions. If your paper is not drawing on empirical data in any form, we advise you to submit your work to Organization Theory – another journal under the auspices of the European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) – instead.