Investors are currently obliged to take environment, social, and governance (ESG) issues into consideration as part of their fiduciary duty. As such, it becomes increasingly important to identify sustainable investments that also hold financial value. A sector where this is especially underdeveloped is real estate. This has a lot to do with the obfuscated conceptualization of ESG. The article identifies key gaps in the literature and practice and provides a framework to further the understanding of how ESG factors can add societal and financial value in the real estate sector. A key premise of the article is that the user in the building is grossly overlooked. Drawing on insights from behavioral social science and environmental psychology, the paper explains the role of the user in improving buildings’ ESG, also taking into account the investment value. To conclude, the article makes the case that the transition to user-centered smart real estate is the solution to improving both the environmental (E) and social (S) sustainability of buildings, as well as their investment value. Therefore, practitioners and academics are encouraged to critically evaluate and contextualize the ESG framework they are using as well as the extent to which users are considered and smart technology is employed.

The users, sensors and networks of the Internet of Things generate huge amounts of data. Given the sophisticated (artificially intelligent) algorithms, computing power and software available, we would expect governments to have successfully completed their digital transformation into Jane Fountain's (2001) ‘Virtual State’. In practice, despite heavy investments, governments often fail to enact new digital technologies in an efficient, appropriate or fair way. This article provides an overview of techno-rational and socio-political failures and solutions at the macro-, meso- and micro-level to support digital transformation. The reviewed articles suggest a modest approach to digital transformation, with an emphasis on high-quality in-house IT infrastructure and expertise, but also better collaborative networks and strong leadership ensuring human oversight.

Investors are currently obliged to take ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) issues into consideration as part of their fiduciary duty. As such, it becomes increasingly important to identify sustainable investments that hold financial value as well. A sector where this is especially underdeveloped is real estate. This has a lot to do with the obfuscated conceptualization of ESG. The article identifies key gaps in literature and practice, and provides a framework to further the understanding of how ESG factors can add societal and financial value in the real estate sector. A key premise of the article is that the user in the building is grossly overlooked. Drawing on insights from behavioral social science and environmental psychology, the paper explains the role of the user in improving buildings’ ESG, also taking into account the investment value. To conclude, the article makes the case that the transition to user-centered smart real estate is the solution to improving both the environmental (E) and social (S) sustainability of buildings, as well as their investment value. Therefore, practitioners and academics are encouraged to critically evaluate and contextualize the ESG framework they are using, as well as the extent to which users are considered and smart technology is employed.

The assemblage concept has recently been applied to the field of democratic innovations. Although ‘democratic assemblage’ as a sensitising concept can sharpen awareness to the mixing and mingling of divergent components that is going on in practices of hybrid democratic innovation (HDI), the current usage of the concept also has its limitations. We argue that to move forward with meaningful theoretical understanding of democratic assemblage, additional steps are required. In this article, we forge connections between assemblage theory and governance scholarship, more notably institutional and cultural theory, to offer a more comprehensive framework for analysing democratic innovations. This expanded approach enhances the analytical and explanatory power of the democratic-assemblage concept. The case of the recurrent reshuffling of PB in Antwerp, Belgium, is used in this article as a test case and grindstone for conceptual argumentation.

Performance indicators have had to endure severe criticism. They are said to lack accuracy, encourage gaming and ultimately fail to improve performance. Yet, despite their well-documented weaknesses, performance indicators abound in governance. This article asks under which conditions performance indicators can improve performance outcomes, despite these proven weaknesses and dysfunctions. Our case study is the stress test of the European banking system, a high-profile performance indicator used for risk regulation. Based on interviews with risk managers in Belgian banks as well as staff at the European Central Bank, the European Banking Authority and the National Bank of Belgium, we find that the process of calculating the stress test improves performance outcomes in itself. It does so by fostering banks’ capacity to self-regulate, tying into Foucault’s notion of governmentality. As such, practitioners and academics should not only pay attention to how performance results can be used, but also examine how the process of calculating the performance indicator might be designed to improve performance outcomes latently.

The stress test of the European Central Bank has become one of the primary regulatory tools for the European banking system. In order to make such a regulatory indicator, different national banks need to be commensurated. They need to be made comparable according to a common metric. Despite a substantive literature, little empirical work has been done to further our understanding of the social and political processes through which these indicators are made. We use Actor-Network Theory (ANT) to enrich the existing literature with an in-depth account of how commensuration is negotiated. We find that despite a preference for commensuration, regulators allow ‘incommensurable’ categories to exist due to largely unrecognized regulatory benefits.