Search results

Field emergence poses an intriguing problem for institutional theorists. New issue fields often arise at the intersection of different sectors, amidst extant structures of meanings and actors. Such nascent fields are fragmented and lack clear guides for action; making it unclear how they ever coalesce. The authors propose that provisional social structures provide actors with macrosocial presuppositions that shape ongoing field-configuration; bootstrapping the field. The authors explore this empirically in the context of social impact investing in the UK, 2000–2013, a period in which this field moved from clear fragmentation to relative alignment. The authors combine different computational text analysis methods, and data from an extensive field-level study, to uncover meaningful patterns of interaction and structuration. Our results show that across various periods, different types of actors were linked together in discourse through “actor–meaning couplets.” These emergent couplings of actors and meanings provided actors with social cues, or macrofoundations, which guided their local activities. The authors thus theorize a recursive, co-constitutive process: as punctuated moments of interaction generate provisional structures of actor–meaning couplets, which then cue actors as they navigate and constitute the emerging field. Our model re-energizes the core tenets of new structuralism and contributes to current debates about institutional emergence and change.

Social entrepreneurs engage in action because social entrepreneurs want to solve social problems. Consequently, to see more social entrepreneurship in contexts with the most severe social problems is expected. This paper argues that this is an oversimplification of the problem-action nexus in social entrepreneurship and that action does not necessarily correspond to the observed scale of social problems. Drawing on the theoretical framing of crescive conditions, this relationship is affected by forms of public investment as institutions that distinctively promote engagement and public interest amongst social entrepreneurs. Thus, this paper assesses the relationship between varying levels of social problems and social entrepreneurship action (SEA) and how and to what extent public investment types – as more and less locally anchored crescive conditions – affect this relationship.

The hypotheses are tested with a series of random-effects regression models. The data stem from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor's (GEM) 2015 social entrepreneurship survey and Chile's 2015 National Socioeconomic Characterisation Survey (CASEN). The authors combined both data sets and cross-matched individual-level data (action and investment) with commune-level data (social problem scale) resulting in unique contextualised observations for 1,124 social entrepreneurs.

Contrary to current understanding, this study finds that SEA is positively associated with low-social problem scale. This means that high levels of deprivation do not immediately lead to action. The study also finds that locally anchored forms of investment positively moderate this relationship, stimulating action in the most deprived contexts. On the contrary, centralised public investment leads to increased social entrepreneurial action in wealthier communities where it is arguably less needed.

The findings contribute to the literature on SEA in deprived contexts, social and public investment as well as policy-level discussion and broader issues of entrepreneurship and social problems.

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.

Purpose – These last three years, the global reputation of microfinance has been damaged by some major crises, notably in India. The Microfinance Investment Vehicles (MIVs), funded by public money and socially inclined investors, are believed by observers to be part of the causes of the crises (von Stauffenberg & Rozas, 2011). As a consequence, they now have to demonstrate their commitment to the social mission of microfinance. This chapter aims at putting forward the debate on MIVs’ ability to effectively contribute to the social mission of microfinance by analyzing how they integrate social performance in their investment decisions.

Methodology/approach – Analysis of interviews with microfinance fund managers based on a framework of recognized impediments to a socially responsible approach in investing.

Findings – While social performance is recognized by respondents to be an important topic for the industry, fund managers still do not give a strong role to social criteria in investment decisions. The findings of the qualitative analysis in the chapter demonstrate that this is linked to a number of major impediments such as the tendency to believe that microfinance is social per se, the lack of standardization in social performance tools, and also a loose regulation regarding social reporting.

Research limitations/implications – The findings of the study are limited due to the relatively small sample size and the focus on fund managers’ answers only. Future research could investigate the viewpoints of different stakeholders in the investment process, such as the back investors of microfinance funds or the regulatory institutions.

Originality/value – To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to get insights on the impediments to a stronger focus on social performance by MIVs, with the application of a recognized framework from the Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) literature.

The 2008/2009 World Financial Crisis underlined the importance of social responsibility for the sustainable functioning of economic markets. Heralding an age of novel heterodox economic thinking, the call for integrating social facets into mainstream economic models has reached unprecedented momentum. Financial Social Responsibility bridges the finance world with society in socially conscientious investments. Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) integrates corporate social responsibility in investment choices. In the aftermath of the 2008/2009 World Financial Crisis, SRI is an idea whose time has come. Socially conscientious asset allocation styles add to expected yield and volatility of securities social, environmental, and institutional considerations. In screenings, shareholder advocacy, community investing, social venture capital funding and political divestiture, socially conscientious investors hone their interest to align financial profit maximization strategies with social concerns. In a long history of classic finance theory having blacked out moral and ethical considerations of investment decision making, our knowledge of socio-economic motives for SRI is limited. Apart from economic profitability calculus and strategic leadership advantages, this paper sheds light on socio-psychological motives underlying SRI. Altruism, need for innovation and entrepreneurial zest alongside utility derived from social status enhancement prospects and transparency may steer investors’ social conscientiousness. Self-enhancement and social expression of future-oriented SRI options may supplement profit maximization goals. Theoretically introducing potential SRI motives serves as a first step toward an empirical validation of Financial Social Responsibility to improve the interplay of financial markets and the real economy. The pursuit of crisis-robust and sustainable financial markets through strengthened Financial Social Responsibility targets at creating lasting societal value for this generation and the following.

Despite speculation from legislators and practitioners, no studies have investigated the reasons for social funds’ marginal market penetration. More generally, calls for a greater understanding of investors’ motivations, needs and purchasing intentions have not been met. By identifying what attracts consumers to social mutual funds and the information-processing difficulties consumers face when considering a purchase, this paper claims to make a meaningful contribution to the literature on social investment and mutual funds. In 2004 an Internet questionnaire survey attracted 382 interested, current and former social investors from Australasia, North America and Europe. The questionnaire measured motivations to invest in social funds and attitudes towards information sources and selection criteria. A restricted data set was used to test a set of propositions relating to respondents’ investment intentions and information asymmetries. Results were largely as expected. Respondents were attracted to social funds from moral conviction and from desires to influence corporate behavior. One in two respondents had chosen not to invest on the basis of informational concerns. Unexpectedly, social investment styles, portfolio listings and perceived accuracy of information were considered more important to an investment decision than management expenses. Findings underline a need for careful product design and management.

Impact investors differ from venture capital firms as they invest to create social and commercial value. This paper pursues the question: how do impact investors select social enterprises? The aim of this study is to understand the selection and investing process of impact investors.

This study developed a database of 115 impact-investing firms across different geographies. Emails were sent to investors associated with each of the impact-investing firms found in the database, out of which 32 replied with consent for a telephonic or in-person interview.

The significant findings presented in the paper are the following. First, this study shows the impact-investing selection process model. The four major steps in the selection process are context, investment focus, venture analysis and decision. In each step, social values and missions become the defining characteristics of the selection process. Second, the findings also discuss the typologies of impact investors as a function of their selection approaches.

This paper discusses the impact investing strategy among social enterprises. It provides a framework for impact investing among investee social enterprises. As an impact investing professional, one learns investment strategy through this paper.

Impact investing is a growing field. It is believed that impact investing could greatly impact sustainable development goals, climate change goals and help in inclusive development. This study helps to further understand impact investing process and hopes to help social enterprises and impact investors make a better match, thereby, creating a greater overall social and environmental impact.

This study helps both practitioners and academics to understand the complexity of impact investing. This study helps develop heuristics that impact investors may use to make investments. This study provides a framework for investing, which the impact investing firms may use to invest.

To evaluate the potential of social return on investment (SROI) and investment ready tools (IRT) in enabling social enterprises to address the credibility gap associated with their ability to build capacity and to adopt a more commercial/entrepreneurial approach to their activities.

The differences that exist between social and financial returns in social enterprises are discussed. Reports the results of interviews conducted with key informants from the social investment industry in Scotland and England to explore their personal understanding or experience of SROI, the tools they use at present to assess social enterprise sustainability and capacity for growth and potential for investment, their likes and dislikes of SROI, and how they see SROI moving forward in a Scottish and/or UK context.

The results indicated that, should social enterprises find a way to overcome the resource implications of implementing SROI, this would enable them to become the preferred investment vehicle for new sources of social finance.

Presents the findings from an MBA dissertation entitled “Is Measuring Social Return on Investment (SROI) a tool that can be used to raise the profile of social enterprises and help attract investment?” (Flockhart 2004) and includes preliminary findings from a pilot programme conducted by CEiS Ltd on the introduction of an Investment Ready Tool (IRT) for social enterprise.

The purpose of this paper is to address reasons for consumer investment in socially responsible investment (SRI) profiled mutual funds. Specifically, the paper deals with the relative influence of financial return and social responsibility on the decision to invest in SRI profiled mutual funds.

A cluster analytic approach was used where 563 SR‐investors were classified into different segments based on their perception of importance of financial return and social responsibility. Furthermore, discriminant analysis and chi² tests were used to profile the segments.

Three segments of SR‐investors were formed. The “primarily concerned about profit” SR‐investors value financial return over social responsibility. The “primarily concerned about social responsibility” value social responsibility over financial return. The “socially responsible and return driven” SR‐investors value both return and social responsibility when deciding to invest in SRI. The segments displayed distinct differences with regard to various profiling variables.

As respondents were generated from one SRI provider, it is possible that the respondents are not fully representative of all SR‐investors.

Since there are segments of SR‐investors that invest in SRI because of different reasons, there is an opportunity for SRI providers to target and adapt communication to certain segments.

For both academia and the SRI industry this study provides useful knowledge on how private SR‐investors handle the issue of financial return and social responsibility when investing in SRI. This understanding of the differing motivations of the SR‐investor also holds practical importance for developing appropriate marketing strategies within the SRI industry.