Search results

The “time value of money principle,” a building block of finance theory and practice, states that money today is worth more than money in the future. In this chapter, we argue that this principle is not consistent with intergenerational equity or sustainability.

We demonstrate that standard capital budgeting negatively affects sustainability by presenting two numerical examples and by discussing the role of financial markets in the time value of money and the discount rate. We then discuss Silvio Gesell’s (1862–1930) concept of Freigeld as a possible alternative framework for a “socially optimal” discount rate.

We show that the time value of money principle, as employed in standard capital budgeting techniques, tends to reject sustainable projects (that only break even in the long run) and accept unsustainable projects (that break even in the short term but entail significant long-term negative externalities). We find that fiat currencies offer interesting perspectives in the context of sustainability.

We show that money, interest rates and investment valuation techniques are not merely technical tools, but have important institutional, social, and political attributes. Taken together with current global demands for sustainability, this observation could justify a new research agenda seeking to redefine current capital budgeting techniques.

We stress that the “time value of money principle” should not be viewed as a technical tool, but rather, as a social and political construct. We argue that the principle needs to be reconsidered given the current global sustainability crisis.

The economics literature considers that externalities indicate a market failure, to which policy makers should respond by introducing optimal tax incentives and regulation. At the same time, the management studies literature has proposed a set of initiatives to align corporate governance with sustainability principles. This chapter examines an issue that concerns both these literatures, that is, the relationship between sustainability and the time value of money.

To lay the ground for a future diversification of academic finance in line with on-going sustainability issues.

We situate academic finance within the broader spectrum of social sciences and highlight its ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions. This brings out the limitations of paradigmatic unity in finance and the ideological aspects of academic finance, and allows us to characterise diversification in finance with reference to the nested epistemological structure of scientific discourse.

We define the diversification of academic finance as a process by which (i) finance research is extended to other existing paradigms in social sciences; (ii) new research metaphors are developed within the current paradigm and (iii) puzzle-solving robustness is achieved. We develop a new research agenda which are divided down into themes, paradigmatic hypotheses, and research questions.

We do not test any particular implications of our research agenda.

This chapter will be a useful reference for any researcher or practitioner seeking to contribute to the diversification of academic finance, and make finance work for society.

This chapter looks at academic finance from an interdisciplinary angle in order to bring out its limitations and carve out an innovative research agenda.

By providing a critical analysis of a recent literature review concerning environmental, social and governance (ESG) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) research in finance which was published in the Journal of Corporate Finance (Gillan et al., 2021), examining it in the light of several reviews on the same or similar lines of research, this paper aims to serve those who wish to do research in the CSR/ESG/corporate sustainability and the reporting thereof areas in finance.

This note serves to comment on Gillan et al.’s review.

Irrespective of the merits of the review, it should not be used by newcomers to the research on CSR in corporate finance given that it provides a very biased view of it.

This commentary serves the purpose of cautioning those interested in becoming acquainted with CSR-related research in corporate finance that the review on which it focuses should be used only as an entry point, given that it offers an incomplete and biased picture.

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting‐edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is no longer seen as a contradiction in terms. Many companies understand that what they do is an intrinsic part of society and that they do have responsibilities. It's also true, of course, that they will sometimes see that good forms of corporate behavior will pay dividends in the long run.

The paper provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world's leading organizations.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy‐to digest format.