Search results

This paper aims to explore the emergence and nature of impact investment in Australia and how it is shaping the development of the social enterprise sector.

Impact investment is an emerging approach to financing social enterprises that aims to achieve blended value by delivering both impact and financial returns. In seeking to deliver blended value, impact investment combines potentially conflicted logics from investment, philanthropy and government spending. This paper utilizes institutional theory as a lens to understand the nature of these competing logics in impact investment. The paper adopts a sequential exploratory mixed methods approach to study the emergence of impact investment in Australia. The mixed methods include 18 qualitative interviews with impact investors in the Australian market and a subsequent online questionnaire on characteristics of impact investment products, activity and performance.

The findings provide empirical evidence of the rapid growth in impact investment in Australia. The analysis reveals the nature of institutional complexity in impact investment and highlights the risk that the impact logic may become overshadowed by the investment logic if the difference in rigor around financial performance measurement and impact performance measurement is maintained. The paper discusses the implications of these findings for the development of the Australian social enterprise sector.

This paper provides empirical evidence on the emergence of impact investment in Australia and contributes to a growing global body of evidence about the nature, size and characteristics of impact investment.

The growing prevalence of social entrepreneurship has been coupled with an increasing number of so-called “impact investors”. However, much remains to be learned about this nascent class of investors. To address the dearth of scholarly attention to impact investing, this study seeks to answer four questions that are central to understanding the phenomenon. What are the defining characteristics of impact investing? Do impact investors differ from traditional classes of investors and, if so, how? What are the motivations that drive impact investment? And, what criteria do impact investors use when evaluating potential investments?

A partially inductive study based on semi-structured interviews with 31 investors and ethnographic observation was conducted to explore how impact investors differ from other classes of investors in their motivations and unique criteria used to evaluate ventures seeking investment.

This study reveals that impact investors represent a unique class of investors that differs from socially responsible investing, from other types of for-profit investors, such as venture capitalists and angel investors, and from traditional philanthropists. The varied motivations of impact investors and the criteria they use to evaluate investments are identified.

Despite the growing practitioner and media attention to impact investing, several foundational issues remain unaddressed. This study takes the first steps toward shedding light on this new realm of early-stage venture investing and clarifying its role in larger efforts of social responsibility.

Impact investing, a type of values-based investing that combines financial investment with philanthropic goals, is receiving heightened scholarly and practitioner attention. The geography of impact investing, however, is largely unexamined, and it is not clear why some regional impact-investing communities are more vibrant than other communities. Regional differences in entrepreneurial activities are increasingly explained by differences in the vitality of entrepreneurial ecosystems, the set of interconnected forces that promote and sustain regional entrepreneurship. The purpose of this paper is to leverage insights from entrepreneurial ecosystems studies to understand the dynamics of communities that encourage and support impact investing.

To explain inter-regional differences in the prevalence and intensity of impact investing, this conceptual paper draws from research on entrepreneurial ecosystems and impact investment to theorize about the ecosystem attributes and components that drive vibrant impact investing communities.

It is theorized that vibrant impact investing ecosystems have three system-level attributes – diversity, cohesion and coordination – that are influenced by the core components of the ecosystems, including the characteristics of investors, the presence of social impact support organizations and cultural values that promote blending logics.

The theoretical model contributes to research on impact investing and hybrid organizing, produces concrete implications for ecosystem builders and sets an agenda for future research.

Impact investment is an emergent field worldwide and it can play an especially important role in Africa. The aim of this study was to examine how impact investors in South Africa manage the tensions between financial returns and social impact.

The research was based on 15 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in the impact investment community in South Africa to understand the related challenges, trade-offs and tensions.

There are two opposing views expressed as to whether the tensions between financial return and social impact result in trade-offs. It is proposed that impact investors embrace this duality and seek to approach it through a contingency and a paradox view. The tensions can be approached by focussing on values alignment, contracting processes, engaged leadership and sector identification. The authors integrate the findings into a proposed framework for effective tension management in an impact investment portfolio.

This study was limited to selected South African interviewees. It would be valuable to extend the study to other African countries.

The issue of values alignment between investors, fund managers and investee firms is an important finding for practice. As is the four-part iterative framework for sensing the operating environment, defining impact, organising internally and defining the investment approach.

This study contributes empirical evidence to scholarship around organisational tensions, especially work in hybrid organisations. It affirms the value of a nuanced application of paradox theory. It examines these tensions through the lived experience of impact investing professionals in an emerging market context.

As an emerging field of financing, impact investing is under-institutionalised and is in a legitimacy building phase. In an attempt to unpack how impact investing is deployed in global markets, the key elements of its definition (intentionality, returns and measurement) are examined through a review of academic and practitioner literature. A refined definition is developed which emphasises the key elements of intentionality and measurement as separating impact investment from the established field of socially responsible investment (SRI).

Funds and products from a publicly available database are systematically analysed against the refined definition to determine the rigour with which intentionality and measurement are applied by self-identified market participants. These elements are used as a proxy to determine “purpose-washing” – a process where funds are presented as impact investments but do not satisfy a tightly applied definition. Purpose-washing enables the possibility of “retrofitting”, where funds originally defined as other products (e.g. SRI) retrospectively claim to be impact investments.

Having found evidence of purpose-washing but not retrofitting, actions are identified to enhance impact investment’s integrity, focussing on intentionality, measurement and transparency. Clarity of definition and purpose are important for a field in the market-building phase, as a lack of clarity could have negative implications for integrity and growth. The authors postulate that purpose-washing may be attributed to twin but distinctive motivations by market participants: interest in fee-generation among fund managers and attempts to bolster field legitimacy by demonstrating sector growth among impact investing proponents.

This paper represents a unique analysis of impact investments against a robust and refined definition. By doing so, it offers a systematic appraisal of impact investments and an overall assessment of market integrity in its field-building phase.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the intersection of research on impact investing and its closely related financial vehicles.

The paper explores 196 articles collected from Scopus and Web of Science using bibliometric and content analysis methodologies.

Despite a growing academic interest in impact investing, scholars generally investigate impact investing as a social phenomenon, using the specific financial mechanism of social impact bonds. This perspective potentially deflates the complex nature of impact investing, which actually combines both social and financial targets and uses a plurality of financial vehicles to reach its goals.

The emerging themes identified will provide both academics and practitioners additional tools to further the debate on impact investing and the understanding of its potential and limits according to the different financial forms it takes. This review should pave the way for a discussion about the boundaries of the social impact sector itself.

Despite the strong international commitment toward impact investing, tensions still exist. A comprehensive overview on the relevant aspects not yet thoroughly investigated will foster the growth of impact investments.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first holistic overview of impact investing, that jointly examines both literature on impact investing and literature on the correlated financial products used in the industry. The result is a comprehensive report of what is known about impact investing in its different financial forms, opening up new pathways for future studies.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the institutionalization of screening and metrics in conventional finance and reflect upon the implications for Islamic finance.

The study involves the analysis of archival data, interviews and fieldwork with current impact investors in North America and the European Union to trace the historical development of impact investing screening and metrics.

First, the paper explores how conventional investors have applied positive and negative screens in the creation of their values/mission-based investment strategies. This is followed by a historical analysis of the development and implementation of impact metrics and regulatory frameworks that influenced the growth of conventional impact investing. The possible benefits of learning from these experiences for the Islamic finance industry are then considered. The paper concludes with an analysis of the potential value of mission/values-based investing for the economic development of the Middle East and North Africa region.

Though not a comprehensive study of institutionalization, this study supports recent calls for more intentional use of capital for blended returns within Islamic markets. To support these initiatives, it provides scholars and practitioners with multiple recommended points of entry into this growing market.

There has been scant organizational research examining the development of best practices within the impact investment community and how these might be applied to other contexts such as Islamic finance.

Impact investing denominates an investment logic that combines social and environmental goals, financial returns as well as personal values. The purpose of this paper is to consider the concept of legitimacy to be an appropriate way to understand how actors in the impact investing market influence discourse in order to overcome the inherent liability of newness – based on hybrid institutional logics – through their financial and non-financial communication.

Based on two theoretically defined sets of codes, a thematic discourse analysis is conducted by analysing meaningful units derived from documents produced by case-selected actors in the impact investing industry, which are then categorised into rhetorical strategies for legitimacy building.

The paper finds that actors use diverse legitimisation strategies based on their relative positioning in the impact investing market. These strategies determine the actors’ main discursive foci and, in turn, are affected by the overall organisational activities, governance and mission. This study proposes and discusses eight legitimacy creating strategies of relevant archetypes of impact investing actors in their financial and non-financial communication. Following these interconnected discursive engagements, a communication gap can be demonstrated between investors, intermediaries and social entrepreneurs.

Such discursive engagement gaps can provide a theoretical lens to explain the almost non-functional market and, as practical implications, show the need for convergence and harmonisation in financial and non-financial reports and communiques. This research further contributes to theory by providing insights into the discursive creation of legitimacy, and by promoting a better understanding of the emerging field of impact investing.

Sustainable investments (SI) represent a promising class of investments, combining financial returns with mitigating environmental challenges, achieving SDG goals and creating a positive business impact. An enhanced global focus on climate change developments in the backdrop of COP26 and COP27, raised the need for comprehensive literature mapping, to understand the emerging themes and future research arenas in this field.

The authors apply a quali–quantitative approach of bibliometric methods coupled with content analysis, to review 1,022 articles obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) database for 1991–2023.

The results identify the leading authors and their collaborations, impactful journals and pioneering articles in sustainable investment literature. The authors also indicate seven major themes of SI to be financial performance; fiduciary duty; CSR; construction of ESG-based portfolios; sustainability assessment tools and mechanisms; investor behavior; and impact investing. Further, content analysis of literature from 2020 to 2023 highlights emerging research issues to be SDG financing via green bonds and social impact bonds; investor impact creation via shareholder engagement and field building strategies; and governance related determinants of firm-level sustainable investments. Finally, the authors discuss the research gaps across these themes and identify future research questions.

This paper crystallizes research themes in sustainable investment literature using a vast coverage of globally conducted studies published in reputed journals till date. The findings of this study coupled with future research questions provide a well-grounded foundation for new researchers to further explore the emerging dimensions of this field.

Improvement in the evaluation methodologies used in the public policy and development fields has increased the amount of evidence-based information available to decision makers. This helps firms evaluate the impacts of their social investments. However, it is not clear whether the business sector is interested in using these methods. This paper aims to describe the level of interest in, knowledge of and preferences relating to the impact evaluation of corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs by managers in Latin American companies and foundations.

A survey of 115 companies and foundations in 15 countries in Latin America was conducted in 2019.

The results indicated that most respondents believed that quantitative impact evaluation could address concerns about CSR program outcomes. However, monitoring and evaluation were primarily seen to be for tracking program objectives rather than for making strategic decisions about innovations to enhance the achievement of outcomes. Decision-making tended to respond to community demands. The main challenges to increasing the use of impact evaluation were the lack of skills and knowledge of management staff and the methodological complexity of evaluation designs. We conclude that there needs to be increased awareness about: the appropriate understanding of social outcomes; the benefits of evaluation; when impact evaluation is useful; how to prepare an evaluation budget; and the effective use of rigorous evidence to inform program design.

Acceptance by the business sector of quantitative measurement of the social impact of CSR programs will lead to improved outcomes from social investment programs.