While contemporary technological disruption is increasingly conceptualized in terms of the logic and paradoxes of the digital platform economy, discussions of "FinTech" have only engaged to a limited extent with these debates-particularly from an economic geographic standpoint. Here we fill this gap by proposing an adapted Global Financial Network (GFN) framework for conceptualizing the organizational and geographic logic of the digital platform economy in finance, and applying it to examine the impact of the digital platform model on asset management. As we will show, asset management is being profoundly disrupted by what we dub digital asset management platforms-or DAMPs-which encompass services including index fund and ETF provision, roboadvising, and analytics and trading support. Like other digital platforms, DAMPs do not so much leverage technology to enhance their competitiveness within markets, as to radically restructure the market itself. Also, like other platforms, their rise has produced a winner-take-all paradox of centralization through democratization that defies predictions of technology-enabled industry decentralization. However, the logic and implications of the rise of DAMPs diverges, in other respects, from non-financial digital platforms, as finance has long possessed an informational intensity and regulatory and organizational fluidity characteristic of the digital platform economy. Consequently, the digital platform model has mostly developed endogenously in asset management through incremental innovation by major financial firms-in a process that has reinforced the position of leading incumbent asset management centers, and above all New York-rather than being introduced from the outside by upstart technology firms and clusters." [BlackRock's Aladdin] has within its memory a vast history of the past 50 years -not just financial -but all kinds of events. What it does is constantly take things that happen in the present day and compares them to events in the past. Out of the millions and millions of correlations -Aladdin then spots possible disasters -possible futures -and moves the investments to avoid that future happening. I can't over-emphasise how powerful Blackrock's system is in shaping the world -it's more powerful in some respects than traditional politics…But it's boring. And there is no story. Just patterns…It is the modern world of power -and it's incredibly boring. Nothing to film, run by a cautious man who is in no way a wolf of Wall Street. It's how power works today. It hides in plain sight -through sheer boringness and dullness." -Adam Curtis chain ledgers (Economist, 2018a;Swan, 2015).

No abstract

In 2016, the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance estimated the market for sustainable investments to have reached 22.89 trillion USD of assets under management. While financial institutions have embraced the idea of sustainable finance as a business opportunity, they have arguably done little, but to piggy-back on investors’ demand. Today, it is not unusual for a single firm to retail fossil free investment funds and concomitantly offer commercial loans towards fracking, coal, and Arctic drilling. This paradox is underpinned by a major gap in the way sustainability has permeated primary and secondary markets which, we argue, calls for a serious rethinking of the sustainability transition in finance. This article proposes two contributions in this direction. First, we develop an original conceptualisation of finance as a socio-technical system to discuss the dynamics that both hinder and promote a transition from mainstream to sustainable finance. Second, we propose to study how investment banks integrate sustainability in their underwriting services. To do so, we filter through close to half a million of debt and equity underwriting deals (2005–2017) using the Government Pension Fund Global of Norway’s list of 153 excluded companies. Our results suggest that investment banks do not shy away from underwriting companies that have been flagged for major environmental, social, and governance misconduct, neither do they restrain from underwriting companies providing contentious products, such as tobacco, coal, and nuclear weapons. Moving forward, we suggest ways to address this problem and call for further research on the responsibility and agency of finance and advanced business services firms in sustainability transitions.

No abstract

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) rating agencies have been instrumental in mainstreaming sustainability in the investment industry. Traditionally, they have relied on company disclosure and human analysis to produce their ratings. More recently however, technological innovation in data scraping and Artificial Intelligence (AI) have undercut the traditional approach. Tech-driven Alternative ESG ratings are becoming increasingly influential yet remain critically underexplored in sustainable finance scholarship. Grounded within financial geography and using mixed methods, this paper fills this gap by comparing a set of Traditional ratings, sourced from MSCI ESG, with an Alternative AI-based set of ESG ratings sourced from Truvalue Labs. Our results expand upon recent research on ESG ratings by shedding new light on low commensurability between Traditional and Alternative ESG ratings. Specifically, we show that differences in ratings are driven by four main factors: differences in ESG theorisation based on key issue selection, differences in data sources analysed, differences in weighting structures for rating aggregation, and finally differences in controversy analysis. Our findings are contextualised using participatory observations collected during fieldwork at a leading asset manager in the City of London. Overall, we show that the advantages of Alternative ESG ratings include higher levels of standardisation, a transparent ‘outside-in’ perspective on ratings, a more democratic aggregation process, and rigorous real-time analytics. We argue that these characteristics reflect a geographic reconfiguration of ESG rating construction, expanding from financial agglomerations to technological and digital spaces of innovation. While Alternative ESG ratings make major promises on how technology can reform sustainable investing, we recognise that risks remain.