Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Defining and Conceptualizing Impact Investing: Attractive Nuisance or Catalyst?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This introduction to the special issue on impact investing applies the attractive nuisance notion to impact investing. Social sector actors ‘trespassing’ on the playing field of conventional investment markets may not appreciate the risks. We apply the framework of essentially contested concepts to foster fruitful diverse research in this emerging research field. We advance six dimensions (intentionality, additionality, contribution, materiality, measurability and attribution), which we propose allow to describe different sub-clusters of how the term is used in research and practice. For each dimension we identify risks and opportunities stemming from the contested nature and highlight an ambitious research agenda for how future business ethics scholars can help address and foster impact investing. We conclude by illustrating how the papers in this special issue address these challenges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://impactmanagementproject.com/impact-management/how-investors-manage-impact/.

References

  • Agrawal, A., & Hockerts, K. (2019). Impact investing strategy: Managing conflicts between impact investor and investee social enterprise. Sustainability, 11(15), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A., & Hockerts, K. (2021). Impact investing: Review and research agenda. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 33(2), 153–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, K., & Tekula, R. (2022). “Value, values and valuation: The marketization of charitable fozundation impact investing.” Journal of Business Ethics (in This Special Issue).

  • Asok, A. (2018). “Impact carry: A carrot-based approach to boosting the impact of impact investments.” Published June 18, 2018. Retrieved June 1, 2021 from https://impactalpha.com/impact-carry-a-carrot-based-approach-to-boosting-the-impact-of-impact-investments/

  • Avetisyan, E., & Hockerts, K. (2017). The consolidation of the ESG rating industry as an enactment of institutional retrogression. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(3), 316–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannick, M., & Goldman, P. (2012). Priming the pump: The case for a sector based approach to impact investing. Omidyar Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barman, E. (2015). Of principle and principal: Value plurality in the market of impact investing. Valuation Studies, 3(1), 9–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L., Henriques, I., & Husted, B. W. (2020). Beyond good intentions: Designing CSR initiatives for greater social impact. Journal of Management, 46(6), 937–964. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319900539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böckel, A., Hörisch, J., & Tenner, I. (2021). A systematic literature review of crowdfunding and sustainability: Highlighting what really matters. Management Review Quarterly, 71(2), 433–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boiardi, P., & Hehenberger, L. (2015). A practical guide to adding value through nonfinancial support. EVPA European Venture Philanthropy Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brest, P. (2016). Investing for impact with program-related investment. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 14(Summer), 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brest, P., & Born, K. (2013). When can impact investing create real impact? Stanford Social Innovation Review, 11(4), 22–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, P., & Knorz, J. (2020). Growth of impact investing (in Germany/and the European Union) generally and as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic. The International Family Offices Journal, 5(1), 6–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., & Tregidga, H. (2017). Re-politicizing social and environmental accounting through Rancière: On the value of Dissensus. Organizations and Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckland, L., & Hehenberger, L. (2021). Measuring social impact can help foster a stronger European Social Economy. Retrieved from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/measuring_social_impact_can_help_foster_a_stronger_european_social_economy

  • Bugg-Levine, A., & Goldstein, J. (2009). Impact investing: Harnessing capital markets to solve problems at scale. Community Development Investment Review, 5(2), 30–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bürer, M. J., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2009). Which renewable energy policy is a venture capitalist’s best friend? Empirical evidence from a survey of International Cleantech Investors. Energy Policy, 37(12), 4997–5006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casasnovas, G., & Jones J. (2022). Who has a seat at the table in impact investing? Addressing inequality by giving voice. Journal of Business Ethics.

  • Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C., Rosenzweig, W., Long, D., & Olsen, S. (2004). Double bottom line project report. Rockefeller Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, J., Hehenberger, L., Fantini, M., Grabenwarter, U., Ratti, M., & Valcarcel, M. (2015). Proposed approaches to social impact measurement. European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Déjean, F., Gond, J. P., & Leca, B. (2004). Measuring the unmeasured: An Institutional Entrepreneur strategy in an emerging industry. Human Relations, 57(6), 741–764. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704044954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Lorenzo, F., & Scarlata, M. (2019). Social enterprises, venture philanthropy and the alleviation of income inequality. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 307–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L. (1990). The ethereal hand: Organizational economics and management theory. Academy of Management Review, 15(3), 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drew, J. M., & Drew, M. E. (2010). Establishing additionality: Fraud vulnerabilities in the clean development mechanism. Accounting Research Journal, 23(3), 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, K. (2011). Acumen fund : Measurement in impact investing. HBS Case 310-011.

  • Eccles, R. G., & Youmans, T. (2016). Materiality in corporate governance: The statement of significant audiences and materiality. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 28(2), 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • EVPA. (2020). What is venture philanthropy?. In: European Venture Philanthropy Association (EVPA), Brussels. Retrieved June 16, 2021 from https://evpa.eu.com/about-us/what-is-venture-philanthropy

  • EVPA. (2021). Social-Bee—FASE: Integrating migrants the easy way. Retrieved June 16, 2021 from https://stories.evpa.eu.com/social-bee-fase/

  • Farber, V., & Wuffli, P. (2020). The Elea Way: A learning journey toward sustainable impact. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Findlay, S., & Moran, M. (2019). Purpose-washing of impact investing funds: Motivations, occurrence and prevention. Social Responsibility Journal, 15(7), 853–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, M. (2007). Kiva and the birth of person-to-person microfinance. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 2(1), 31–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallie, W. B. (2019). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (pp. 167–198). Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giamporcaro, S., & Gond, J. P. (2016). Calculability as politics in the construction of markets: The case of socially responsible investmEnt in France. Organization Studies, 37(4), 465–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615604498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GIIN. (2021). What is impact investing? The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN). Cham: GIIN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J. P., & Moon, J. (2011). Corporate social responsibility in retrospect and prospect: Exploring the life-cycle of an essentially contested concept. ICCSR Research Paper Series, 44(59), 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • GRI. (2011). Technical protocol: Applying the report content principles. Global Reporting Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, D., Dithrich, H., Sunderji, S., & Nova, N. (2020). The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) annual survey 2020. GIIN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hehenberger, L., & Harling, A. (2018). Moving towards ‘Impact-Adjusted’ Financial Returns. American Journal of Evaluation, 39(3), 408–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hehenberger, L., Mair, J., & Metz, A. (2019). The assembly of a field ideology: An idea-centric perspective on systemic power in impact investing. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1672–1704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höchstädter, A. K., & Scheck, B. (2015). What’s in a name: An analysis of impact investing understandings by academics and practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2), 449–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hockerts, K. (2015). How hybrid organizations turn antagonistic assets into complementarities. California Management Review, 57(3), 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus Emerging Davids—Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 481–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, E. T. (2013). Interrogating the theory of change: Evaluating impact investing where it matters most. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, 3(2), 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, E. T., & Harji, K. (2012). Unlocking capital, activating a movement: Final report of the strategic assessment of the Rockefeller Foundation’s impact investing initiative. Rockefeller Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeucken, M. (2010). Sustainable finance and banking: The financial sector and the future of the planet. Earthscan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Juravle, C., & Lewis, A. (2008). Identifying impediments to SRI in Europe: A review of the practitioner and academic literature. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(3), 285–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2008.00536.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact|Stanford social innovation review. Stanford Social Innovation Review (Winter).

  • Kannampuzha, M. J., & Hockerts, K. (2019). Organizational social entrepreneurship: Scale development and validation. Social Enterprise Journal, 15(3), 290–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kickul, J., & Lyons, T. S. (2015). Financing social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 5(2), 83–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreutzer, K. (2022). On the discursive constrcution of social entrepreneurship in pitch situations: The Intertextuak Reproduction of Business and Social discourse by presneters and their audience. Journal of Business Ethics.

  • Lehner, O. M., Nicholls, A., & Kapplmüller, S. B. (2022). Arenas of contestation: A senian social justice perspective on the nature of materiality in impact measurement. Journal of Business Ethics.

  • Lehner, O. M., & Nicholls, A. (2014). Social finance and crowdfunding for social enterprises: A public–private case study providing legitimacy and leverage. Venture Capital, 16(3), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2014.925305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mair, J., & Hehenberger, L. (2014). Front-stage and backstage convening: The transition from opposition to mutualistic coexistence in organizational philanthropy. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1174–1200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallett, J. E., & Michelson, S. (2010). Green investing: Is it different from socially responsible investing? International Journal of Business, 5(4), 395–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellor, M., & Moore, G. (2005). Business for a social purpose: Traidcraft and shared interest. Development, 48(1), 84–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, T., Newth, J., & Woods, C. (2022). Ethical sensemaking in impact investing: Reasons and motives in the Chinese renewable energy sector. Journal of Business Ethics (in This Special Issue).

  • Messier, W. F., Martinov-Bennie, N., & Eilifsen, A. (2005). A Review and integration of empirical research on materiality: Two decades later. Auditing, 24(2), 153–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Hall, K. (2012). Social return on investment (SROI) and performance measurement. Public Management Review, 15(6), 923–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran, M., & Ward-Christie, L. (2022). Blended social impact investment transactions—Why are they so complex? Journal of Business Ethics.

  • Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (2005). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25(12), 1228–1263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, K. R., & Binder, J. K. (2021). I am what I pledge: The importance of value alignment for mobilizing backers in reward-based crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 45(3), 531–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okoye, A. (2009). Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 613–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pryshlakivsky, J., & Searcy, C. (2017). A heuristic model for establishing trade-offs in corporate sustainability performance measurement systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2), 323–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puroila, J., & Mäkelä, H. (2019). Matter of opinion: Exploring the socio-political nature of materiality disclosures in sustainability reporting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 32(4), 1043–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichert, P., Bird, M. D., & Farber, V. (2021a). Gender and entrepreneurial propensity: Risk-taking and prosocial preferences in labour market entry decisions. Social Enterprise Journal, 17(1), 111–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichert, P., Hudon, M., Szafarz, A., & Christensen, R. K. (2021b). Crowding-in or crowding-out? How subsidies signal the path to financial independence of social enterprises. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 4(3), 291–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarlata, M., Gil, L. A., & Zacharakis, A. (2012). Philanthropic venture capital: Venture capital for social entrepreneurs? Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 8(4), 279–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S. (2018). Linking environmental management accounting: A reflection on (missing) links to sustainability and planetary boundaries. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 38(1), 19–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S., & Zvezdov, D. (2015). Gatekeepers of sustainability information: Exploring the roles of accountants. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 11(3), 333–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, L., & Kollmuss, A. (2015). Perverse effects of carbon markets on HFC-23 and SF6 abatement projects in Russia. Nature Climate Change, 5(12), 1061–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S. (2003). The ‘ethics’ of ethical investing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022933912939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serafeim, G. (2020). Social-impact efforts that create real value. Harvard Business Review, 98(5), 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B., Lawson, A., Jones, J., Holcomb, T., & Minnich, A. (2022). Trying to serve two masters is easy, compared to three: Identity multiplicity work by christian impact investors. Journal of Business Ethics.

  • Thirion, I., Reichert, P., Xhauflair, V., & De Jonck, J. (2022). From fiduciary duty to impact fidelity: Managerial compensation in impact investing. Journal of Business Ethics.

  • Uzsoki, D., & Guerdat, P. (2019). Impact tokens: A blockchain-based solution for impact investing.

  • van Duuren, E., Plantinga, A., & Scholtens, B. (2016). ESG integration and the investment management process: Fundamental investing reinvented. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(3), 525–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosmer, W., & de Bruijn, M. (2017). Attribution in results measurement: Rationale and hurdles for impact investors. Donor Committee for Enterprise Development (DCED).

    Google Scholar 

  • Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 308–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Kai Hockerts

  2. ESADE - Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain

    Lisa Hehenberger

  3. Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany

    Stefan Schaltegger

  4. IMD, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Vanina Farber

Authors
  1. Kai Hockerts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Hehenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefan Schaltegger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vanina Farber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Hockerts.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hockerts, K., Hehenberger, L., Schaltegger, S. et al. Defining and Conceptualizing Impact Investing: Attractive Nuisance or Catalyst?. J Bus Ethics 179, 937–950 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05157-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05157-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation