It has long been overlooked that factions of finance such as banks and insurers can have opposing policy interests. This paper is concerned with the preferences and strategies of private financial actors in the context of private prefunded pensions. To capture the “tug of war” among these actors, this paper identifies their different financial business models (insurance- and investment-orientation), political roles (financial incumbents and challengers), and levels at which infighting may occur (political and product-market level). For the German case, it shows that product-market competition among financial incumbents and challengers over retirement savings products only turned into competition politics during the 1990s, when shifting political winds provided an opening to insert path-shaping instruments in line with the program of finance capitalism. Financial actors’ preferences are not a derivative of economic or functional incentives, but socially embedded in that they are crucially shaped by interactions with their competitors and the political environment. The analysis disentangles the complex web of competition, cooperation, and ownership among factions of finance and discerns their genuine preferences from those strategically adjusted to context. This sheds doubt on functionalist explanations of (pension) financialization and enhances our understanding of how financial actors form and pursue their preferences.

The most common method of assessing outcomes of change projects is to compare the final outcomes with predefined goals and conclude that the project has been a success, or more commonly, a failure. We question whether such simple conclusions pay due respect to complex processes. In this paper, we apply a sensemaking perspective to explore how and when outcomes of change projects are assessed. We report from a longitudinal case study of a project in the Norwegian public sector that was initiated to suggest and implement changes in response to major challenges in the health sector. We found outcome narratives in all project phases, including those not based on change objectives. The study contributes to the literature by suggesting that outcome narratives are continuously constructed throughout change projects and that competing outcome narratives can co-exist, be reinforced or be merged over time.

Social enterprises create innovative solutions to address social issues and achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This paper examines the innovative social entrepreneurial processes using the theoretical foundation of responsible innovation (i.e., anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and deliberation, responsiveness, and knowledge management). The data collected from three case study organisations reveals that social enterprises at the initiation stage address only a few SDGs. However, innovation development and implementation processes lead to products and services diversification and geographical expansion which broaden the SDG focus. During this process, enterprises iteratively conduct activities associated with different dimensions of responsible innovation and operate within ethics, values and rights-based boundaries. Based on these findings, this paper proposes a process model combining SDG literature with responsible innovation. The managerial implications of using responsible innovation perspective to achieve SDGs are also highlighted.