Report by Jakob Gasser (University of Graz) and Frithjof Nungesser (University of Graz)
From June 30 to July 2, 2025, the biennial Congress of the Austrian Association for Sociology (ÖGS) took place at the University of Graz (Austria). Part of the extensive and diverse program was a panel (a so-called “ad-hoc group”) on the “Sociology and Economics of Conventions”. By providing insights into some current theoretical and empirical developments, the panel aimed to present the EC/SC approach to the Austrian sociological community, where it is not yet widespread compared to other countries. The panel, which took place on the morning of July 2, was organized by Jakob Gasser and Frithjof Nungesser, both from the Department of Sociology at the University of Graz. Following a short introduction by the organizers, the panel featured three presentations by Julia Brandl, Valeska Cappel, and Eva Nadai/Anna Gonon.

Speakers and organizers of the EC/SC panel. From left to right: Anna Gonon, Julia Brandl, Valeska Cappel, Eva Nadai, Jakob Gasser, and Frithjof Nungesser
Julia Brandl from the Department of Human Resource Management & Employment Relations at the University of Innsbruck (Austria) kicked things off with a presentation entitled “The Art of Compromise: Challenges and Solutions in the Implementation of Rules in the Corporate Context”. In her talk, Julia Brandl addressed the question of how the EC/SC approach can help to explain the actions of actors within organizations during phases of regulatory change. In doing so, her presentation concentrated on the theoretical concept of compromise. Drawing on the work of Boltanski and Thévenot, Brandl argued that a compromise enables different actors to respond jointly to a situation—even when they hold contradictory positions. A compromise represents a temporary agreement that ensures various modes of action are equally integrated and viewed as legitimate. As it becomes embedded in organizational structures and boundary objects, and through the actor’s daily commitments, such a compromise can be stabilized in the long term.
After outlining the theoretical framework, Julia Brandl applied the concept to an empirical case—the reform of personnel evaluations in the German armed forces (the Bundeswehr). In 2008, the central service regulation governing performance appraisals in the German Bundeswehr was revised. The background to this reform was that, under the existing evaluation system, an increasing number of soldiers were receiving high ratings, which made it increasingly difficult to justify promotion decisions. The new system required superiors to rank their subordinates within an ordering system. Additionally, they were allowed to issue top evaluations only in exceptional cases. This reform represented a critical moment within the organization: In order to avoid conflicts, the involved actors developed a compromise that balanced the functional requirements of the new evaluation system and the responsibility toward those being assessed. The new rules were jointly documented and communicated transparently. Interestingly, the compromise also rested on a system of managing expectations, whereby soldiers with poor evaluations were placated with the prospect of improved ratings at the time they became eligible for promotion. Thus, in her presentation, Julia Brandl demonstrated how in the process of regulatory change multiple goals of different organizational actors can be integrated by means of compromise.
The second presentation was given by Valeska Cappel from the Department of Sociology at the University of Lucerne (Switzerland). The topic of the talk was “Digital Health Classifications Between Justification and Engagement: Regime Change in the Use of Health Apps”. Drawing on a qualitative study of health apps use, Valeska Cappel demonstrated that innovations and technologies do not determine how actors actually use them. Although it is undoubtedly important to consider the history of the development of health apps or the potentially conflicting interests of tech companies, health insurance providers, and data protection authorities (which Valeska Cappel briefly outlined at the beginning), this is not enough to understand the concrete and varied use of these apps. Rather, actors actively shape how these technologies are used—often beyond their originally intended functions.
In order to analyze how health apps are used in practice, Valeska Cappel combined the EC/SC perspective with Thévenot’s concept of “regimes of engagement.” By means of this concept, Laurent Thévenot captures in an exploratory manner the manifold forms of engagement with the environment. Within this framework, justification appears only as one regime of action among others. If actions are situated within the regime of familiarity or the regime of planned action, for example, they are not linked to a broader common good and do not claim generalizability. Building on this framework, Valeska Cappel illustrated how app users strategically develop ways to either enable or avoid shifts between different regimes of engagement, thus situating themselves in specific relationships to health apps, their categories and standards of evaluation. While some use the app for preventive health purposes, others rely on it for self-management (e.g., tracking calorie intake or sleep patterns). Still others use the app outside its original scope, for instance, for social interaction or navigation. By drawing on both EC/SC concepts and the regimes of engagement, Valeska Cappel contributed valuable insights into how digitalization processes succeed or fail in everyday contexts.
The panel was concluded with a presentation by Eva Nadai and Anna Gonon from the School of Social Work at the University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, who shared their insights into “Distribution Systems for People Affected by Poverty from a Convention Theory Perspective.” Based on a qualitative long-term study on households affected by poverty in Switzerland funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the researchers’ presentation explored two main questions: Which distribution systems are available to those affected by poverty in order to obtain consumer goods? How do the people affected by poverty actually use these systems?
With regard to the first question, the researchers found that those affected by poverty have three main distribution systems at their disposal: In addition to the system of the profit-oriented market, the dominant system for society in general, they also make use of the secondary distribution system of the “charity economy”, which provides those affected by poverty with donated basic goods free of charge or at a symbolic price. In addition, some of the people in the sample also use online peer-to-peer platforms on which second-hand goods are sold, lent, or given away for free by private individuals. Drawing on the EC/SC approach, Eva Nadai and Anna Gonon interpret these systems as compromises between different coordination logics, specifically between the market convention, the ecological convention and the philanthropic welfare convention. They also emphasize that access to the different systems is regulated by specific tests and formats. If, for example, the neediness of the persons is tested, this format implies the separation of poor and non-poor consumers and thus also a determination of the value of the actors.
With regard to the second question, Eva Nadai and Anna Gonon showed that the use of these different distribution systems is determined not only by the availability of economic means, but also by competent and flexible use of these systems. For example, those affected by poverty make strategic use of certain budget brands and discounts, which often requires precise local knowledge and exact timing of purchases, thus involving these individuals in the regime of planned action. An important aspect of (non-)use of the systems is the associated risk of shame and humiliation. While this often results in the non-utilization of services such as food banks, at least in some contexts, coping with this is made easier by the social revaluation of using second-hand goods or avoiding waste. Even if those affected do not typically employ environmental justifications themselves, Eva Nadai and Anna Gonon argued, the growing prominence of the green world in society may help reduce the risk of embarrassment and humiliation.
Overall, the panel once again demonstrated the diversity of research topics and analytical possibilities opened up by the EC/SC – especially through interdisciplinary exchange. In addition, all contributions showed how productive it is to consider both the plurality of justifications and the diversity of regimes of engagement and to integrate these two conceptual frameworks with each other.
OpenEdition vous propose de citer ce billet de la manière suivante :
diazbone (15 août 2025). EC/SC Panel at the 28th Congress of the Austrian Association for Sociology in Graz (July 2, 2025). Économie des conventions. Consulté le 9 février 2026 à l’adresse https://doi.org/10.58079/14hd3