Search results

The world of ‘responsible’ ethical and social investment is more substantial than it might seem. At the end of 2007, holdings in ‘responsible’ funds amounted to 20 billion, against the 5 billion three years earlier. Although these ‘responsible’ holdings tend to be ‘best-in-class’ funds (Fig. 9.1), the significant rise in ‘sustainable funding’ in this area is clear.

The market for solidarity employee savings remains under most people's radar in France, but targeting a new audience of employee savers it has progressed steadily in recent years. The solidarity employee savings works on the same mechanisms of employee savings ‘classic’, while allowing employees, through a part of their investments, to help solidarity activities. Since 1 January 2010, it is mandatory that French employees be offered a solidarity savings fund in which they can invest assorted company savings plans (French acronym ‘PEE’ for plans épargne entreprise) or group retirement savings plans (French acronym ‘PERCO’ for plan épargne retraite collective). In this way, French legislators have created a wealth of around 12.3 million employees in solidarity employee savings, hence the value of understanding this emerging phenomenon and ascertaining its compatibility with employee savings.

Contrary to what its title might suggest, this chapter does not develop an alternative vision of finance. On the basis of the financial world as it currently operates, we propose to identify the paradoxes and the likely evolution of a banking and financial system evolving. Based on the facts, this chapter seeks to extend the discussions initiated in the last chapter, entitled “Socially responsible banks?” of our book “The management of the bank,” published by Vuibert editions. The frantic pace of innovation and the requirements of regulators encourage banks to review their organization and their governance. This chapter attempts to position the bank between two paradoxes: on one side, the crises have not made more responsible banks. The facts remain: rates and currency manipulation, embezzlement rules on bonuses, even if some are still under financial assistance of the United States. On the other hand, the “finance otherwise” innovates, disturbs, and upsets. Creative players such as collaborative funding or virtual currencies are not really threatening to the big banks. But in the past, marked by their personnel costs and infrastructure cannot meet the agility of these new entrants “crowdfunding,” and other online payment methods have backed the Web. These innovations really threaten banks that do not lack the resources to adapt. And if tomorrow, the banks no longer existed? Behavior changes and already a growing number of clients save, borrow, and lend the use of means of payment to settle their online purchases without using the services of traditional financial institutions! A certainty, “finance otherwise,” will play a stimulatory role. The speed and magnitude of change is such that it becomes necessary for banks and financial institutions to adapt to these new technologies to increase or simply maintain their business. Based on the facts, the chapter explores and analyzes the developments that may become sustainable for a banking system reluctant to lose the monopoly of the distribution of credit and means of payment. The “end of the banks,” is a “provocative” subject but insufficiently addressed in the economic literature.

Since Thomas Kuhn (1962), a historian of science who gave ‘paradigm’ its contemporary meaning, the term ‘paradigm’ has been widely used in science and social sciences to refer to a theoretical framework or thought pattern in any given discipline, or broadly, a set of experiences, beliefs and values that affect individual perceptions of a reality and their subsequent reactions. A dominant paradigm is the widely held system of thought in a society at a particular period of time. For Kuhn, a dominant paradigm can be changed and replaced by a new one, which often occurs in a revolutionary manner in science. In social sciences, ‘paradigm shift’ implies the changing ways of understanding and organising a social reality.

The purpose of this chapter is to synthesise research on the concept of sustainable development in finance. Indeed, since the mid-1990s under the leadership of the United Nations and various non-governmental organisations, sustainable development has experienced an unprecedented boom that affects many areas. This synthesis is organised around two main themes: sustainable finance and fintech/digitalisation.

The sector of interdependent venture capital in France will be detailed henceforth. We will try to understand why its investments deserve to be called ‘interdependent’.

Purpose – This chapter shows that Islamic finance does not aim at substituting the conventional financial system, rather it can be used to reform it. It can thus indirectly contribute to its survival.

Methodology/Approach – We first present the peculiarities of the Islamic financial model. We then investigate its prospects: coexistence, integration, substitution? It is the investigation of the strategy and activities of the Islamic banks that allows to address this issue.

Findings – We find that the deliberate strategy is essentially to compete with conventional banks. Consequently, there is a willingness to be part of the conventional system. The study of the Islamic financial system allows to conclude that their emergence serves a purpose. The Islamic financial principles provide a benchmark for improving and reforming the conventional system.

Originality/Value of Paper – The main contribution is to provide a clear answer to the future of Islamic finance, and to present the contribution of Islamic finance to renewal of financial and economic thought.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to show that cooperative banks’ values and finalities are not identical to capitalist banks, which are solely geared toward the maximization of short-term financial returns.

The idea that has been widely trumpeted since the beginning of the cooperative movement is profoundly “democratic” due to the fact that it is based on the idea of one person=one vote and because the concept of “collective property” remains topical to this day.

This raises questions as to the best way of conceptualizing the fact that some executives of banking institutions operating in the social economy have in recent years prioritized the development of growth strategies whose only goal is to constantly increase their power and adopt the same ultimate goals as capitalist banks do.

Results – This chapter highlights the reasons for cooperative banks’ deviations and suggests a return to the original mindset of the social and solidarity ideal. It specifies what the terms “market” and “competition” refer to and also suggests a reshaping of two categories derived from neoclassical thinking: “free and self-determined individuals” and “enterprise.” Lastly, it identifies the institutional conditions underlying the generalization of cooperative finance so this is no longer viewed as something marginal or isolated.

Prior research has documented the importance of the state and social movements for the emergence and proliferation of alternative organizational forms. Yet, we lack a comprehensive and interactive understanding of the larger environment that sustains cooperatives and other collectivist-democratic organizations. Using the example of Brazil’s Solidarity Economy Movement, a longstanding social movement to address poverty and inequality, we describe how a multilevel ecosystem of organizations and institutions creates conditions favorable for the growth of alternative organizational forms – in this context, democratic cooperatives that the Movement calls solidarity economy enterprises (SEEs). Drawing from archival data, interviews, and a government survey of over 19,000 SEEs between 2005 and 2012, we map out the key actors at each level of the ecosystem, identifying three primary mechanisms by which these actors collectively enabled the creation and development of SEEs: (1) providing glue for action; (2) organizing for action; and (3) engaging in action. These mechanisms, in turn, allowed for greater communication and cohesion and the exchange of information and experiences among the Movement’s participants, thereby enhancing their interconnectedness and the institutionalization of their practices.

This chapter reconsiders commonly held views on the ownership and management of private property, contrasting capitalist and simple property, particularly in relation to how a firm shareholder governance model has shaped society. This consideration is motivated by the scale and scope of the modern global crisis, which has combined financial, economic, social and cultural dimensions to produce world disenchantment.

By contrasting an exchange value standpoint with a use value perspective, this chapter explicates current conditions in which neither the state nor the market prevail in organising economic activity (i.e. cooperative forms of governance and community-created brand value).

This chapter offers recommendations related to formalised conditions for collective action and definitions of common guiding principles that can facilitate new expressions of the principles of coordination. Such behaviours can support the development of common resources, which then should lead to a re-appropriation of the world.

It is necessary to think of enterprises outside a company or firm context when reflecting on the end purpose and means of collective, citizen action. From a methodological standpoint, current approaches or studies that view an enterprise as an organisation, without differentiating it from a company, create a deadlock in relation to entrepreneurial collective action. The absence of a legal definition of enterprise reduces understanding and evaluations of its performance to simply the performance by a company. The implicit shift thus facilitates the assimilation of one with the other, in a funnel effect that reduces collective projects to the sole projects of capital providers.

Because forsaking society as it stands is a radical response, this historical moment makes it necessary to revisit the ideals on which modern societies build, including the philosophy of freedom for all. This utopian concept has produced an ideology that is limited by capitalist notions of private property.