Skip to main content

Positive Impact Investing: A New Paradigm for Future Oriented Leadership and Innovative Corporate Culture

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Positive Impact Investing

Part of the book series: Sustainable Finance ((SUFI))

Abstract

Integrating impact into investment and financial decision making based on the SDGs is a nascent field of research. At the moment, it is mostly practitioners that are driving the impact assessment process and its integration into investment and finance. Some academic research has been done on the consequences of consistent implementation of ESG standards and their value in de-risking assets, managing reputation and preventing damage to communities and environment, finally showing up in a better rating, lower operational risk or a higher good will. While this ex post perspective on consequences of leadership behaviour is useful, it does not provide management with a practical ex ante decision making tool, expanding decision making to integrate impact as a new decision making perspective. The ex ante decision support function of impact in opportunity recognition and scenario modelling has not been researched so far.

Modelling of future fitness and positive impact creation ex ante will be a decisive market advantage in decision making. It is rational to assume that a positive impact driven approach will foster innovation, Yet the market has not entirely captured the upside potential of looking into positive impact creation as a decision making tool. Many authors stay with the ex post outcomes like creation of jobs or new consumption possibilities for customers when researching impact. Integrating impact into decision making is the new leadership tool because governments, charities, philanthropists alone are no longer capable of dealing with the twenty-first century’s social and environmental challenges. Focussing on the act of charitable giving belongs into the mindset of the twentieth century. The dependence on unpredictable funding hindered many charitable organizations from realizing their full potential concerning innovations, effectiveness and scale”. The dominant paradigm in financial markets today is the creation of financial returns solely and within the mindset of the twentieth century eco-social return is seen as sacrificing a certain amount of financial return. Although there is rich research that this trade-off is not true, it may still misalign impact investing with the principal—agent theory that posits that shareholder value is the indicator on how well the agent has managed the capital and ownership rights of the principal. This misinterpretation can be overcome with a growth and innovation mind-set that understands impact creation as an ex ante decision making tool and integrates in in all strategic decision making. This new leadership mind-set will foster not only impact but innovation and growth alongside and transform the logical constructs of mainstream investing and finance. Leadership focus on achieving and actively designing social outcomes as part of the business model aligns with the growth mind-set of the twenty-first century and is explored in this anthology.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cowan v Scargill [1985] Ch 270 is an English trusts law case, concerning the scope of discretion of trustees to make investments for the benefit of their members. It held that trustees cannot ignore the financial interests of the beneficiaries. The trustees of the National Coal Board pension fund had È3,000 million in assets.[4] Five of the ten trustees were appointed by the NCB and the other five were appointed by the National Union of Mineworkers. The board of trustees set the general strategy, while day to day investment was managed by a specialist investment committee. Under a new “Investment Strategy and Business Plan 1982“ the NUM wanted the pension fund to (1) cease new overseas investment (2) gradually withdraw existing overseas investments and (3) withdraw investments in industries competing with coal. This was all intended to enhance the mines’ business prospects. The five NCB nominated trustees made a claim in court over the appropriate exercise of the pension fund’s powers.Mr JR Cowan was the deputy-chairman of the board. Arthur Scargill led the NUM and was one of the five member nominated trustees, and represented the other four in person. See [1985] Ch 270, 276, per Megarry VC “with both courtesy and competence”.

References

  • Accenture. (2013). The UN global compact-Accenture CEO study on sustainability 2013. Accenture Sustainability Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ammann, M., Oesch, D., & Schmid, M. M. (2011). Corporate governance and firm value: International evidence. Journal of Empirical Finance, 18, 36–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antadze, N., & Westley, F. R. (2012). Impact metrics for social innovation: Barriers or bridges to radical change? Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2012.726005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attig, N., El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., & Suh, J. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and credit ratings. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 679–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barby, C., & Gan, J. (2014). Shifting the lens: A de-risking framework for impact investments. London: Bridges Ventures.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, M. E., Konchitchki, Y., & Landsman, W. R. (2013). Cost of capital and earnings transparency. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 55, 206–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, D., & Wiseman, M. (2014). Big investors have an obligation to end the plague of short termism. Harvard Business Review, 2014, 48–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beiner, S., Drobetz, W., Schmid, M. M., & Zimmermann, H. (2006). An integrated framework of corporate governance and firm valuation. European Financial Management, 12(2), 249–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, B. W., & Davidson, W. N. (2010). The relation between stakeholder management, firm value, and CEO compensation: A test of enlightened value maximization. Financial Management, 2010(Autumn), 929–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry. (2015). Fiduciary duties and responsible investment: An overview. In K. Wendt (Ed.), Responsible investment banking. Cham: Springer https://www.springerprofessional.de/fiduciary-duty-and-responsible-investment-an-overview/2236492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, C., & Scanlan, C. (2014). The voice of the beneficiary. In J. P. Hawley, A. G. F. Hoepner, K. L. Johnson, J. Sandberg, & E. J. Waitzer (Eds.), Handbook of institutional investment and fiduciary duty. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beurden, P. v., & Gossling, T. (2008). The worth of values – A literature review on the relation between corporate social and financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 407–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, A., & Winkelmann, K. (1998). Using the Black-Litterman global asset allocation model: Three years of practical experience. In R. A. Krieger (Ed.), Fixed income research – Goldman Sachs (pp. 1–15). New York: Goldman Sachs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, M., & Green, M. (2010). The capital curve for a better world. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 5(1), 25–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodzesan Mariana. (2015). AQAL – De-risking for outstanding returns of 6,8x. Available at: http://www.eban2015.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/07.05.15-Mariana-Bozesan-Aqal-Capital.pdfBodzesan

  • Borgers, A., Derwall, J., Koedijk, K., & Horst, J. t. (2013). Stakeholder relations and stock returns: On errors in investors’ expectations and learning. Journal of Empirical Finance, 22, 159–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate social performance and stock returns: UK evidence from disaggregate measures. Financial Management, 35(3), 97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandstetter, L., & Lehner, O. M. (2015). Opening the market for impact investments: The need for adapted portfolio tools. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 5(2), 87–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, T., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2011). How hot is your bottom line? Linking carbon and financial performance. Business & Society, 50(2), 233–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cambridge Associates. (2015). Risks and opportunities from the changing climate: Playbook for the truly long-term investor. Available at https://www.cambridgeassociates.com/research/risks-and-opportunities-from-the-changing-climate-playbook-for-the-truly-long-term-investor/

  • Canadian International Development Agency. (2012). Effective strategies for sustainable development. http://publications.gc.ca/site/archivee-archived.html?url=http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/sct-tbs/BT31-4-27-2005-eng.pdf

  • CBI. (2012). Fixing capitalism: Paul Polman interview. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from http://www.cbi.org.uk/media-centre/news-articles/2012/11/fixing-capitalism-paul-polman-interview/

  • Chen, K. C. W., Chen, Z., & Wei, K. C. J. (2011). Agency costs of free cash flow and the effect of shareholder rights on the implied cost of equity capital. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 46(1), 171–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, A. W. K. (2011). Do stock investors value corporate sustainability? Evidence from an event study. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 145–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C., Emerson, J., & Thornley, B. (2013). Impact investing 2.0 – The way forward – Insight from 12 outstanding firms (pp. 1–41). Durham: Duke University, Fuqua School of Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. L., Feiner, A., Viehs, M., Selim, O., Kell, G., Gifford, M., Arai, M., & Turhan, I. (2014). From the stockholder to the stakeholder. How sustainability can drive financial out performance. Available at: http://www.arabesque.com/index.php?tt_down=51e2de00a30f88872897824d3e211b11

  • Darnall, N., Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (2008). Do environmental management systems improve business performance in an international setting? Journal of International Management, 14, 364–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, X., Kang, J.-K., & Low, B. S. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder value maximization: Evidence from mergers. Journal of Financial Economics, 110, 87–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derwall, J., & Verwijmeren, P. (2007). Corporate governance and the cost of equity capital: Evidence from GMI’s governance rating. ECCE Research Note 06-01. The European Centre for Corporate Engagement. University of Maastricht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desjardins, S. (2011). The need for a smarter funding ecosystem. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 6(3), 85–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2013). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Harvard Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kim, H., & Park, K. (2014). Corporate environmental responsibility and the cost of capital: International evidence (Working Paper). University of Alberta, University of South Carolina, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • EMPEA. (2015). How Private Equity Models And Practitioners Can Advance Impact Investing in Emerging Markets (2015) in Karen Wendt (Ed): “Responsible Investment Banking, Risk Management Frameworks, Sustainable Financial Innovation and Softlaw Standards, Springer, ISBN 978-3-319-10310 – 5 00, pp. 563–575 EMPEA Impact Investing Council. Patricia Dinneen, Chair of EMPEA Impact Investing Council, Arun Gore, President and CEO, Gray Ghost Ventures Renana Shvartzvald, Head of ESG & Impact, Vital Capital Fund, Yasemin Saltuk, J.P. Morgan Social Finance, Vineet Rai, Founder and CEO, Aavishkaar Jim Roth, Co-founder and Partner, LeapFrog Investments, Marcus Regueira, Founding Partner and CIO, FIR Capital Joan Trant, Director of Marketing and Impact, TriLinc Global Katryn Bowe EMPEA

    Google Scholar 

  • Filbeck, G., & Preece, D. (2003). Fortune’s best 100 companies to work for in America: Do they work for shareholders? Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 30(5), 771–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher-Vanden, K., & Thorburn, K. S. (2011). Voluntary corporate environmental initiatives and shareholder wealth. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62, 430–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flammer, C. (2013a). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 758–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flammer, C. (2013b). Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? (Working Paper). University of Western Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogler, H. R., & Nutt, F. (1975). A note on social responsibility and stock valuation. Academy of Management Journal, 18(1), 155–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulton, M., Kahn, B. M., & Sharples, C. (2012). Sustainable investing. Establishing long-term value and performance. DB Climate Change Advisors – Deutsche Bank Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galema, R., Plantinga, A., & Scholtens, B. (2008). The stocks at stake: Return and risk in socially responsible investment. Journal of Banking and Finance, 32, 2646–2654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Castro, R., Arino, M. A., & Canela, M. A. (2010). Does social performance really lead to financial performance? Accounting for endogeneity. Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geobey, S., Westley, F. R., & Weber, O. (2012). Enabling social innovation through developmental social finance. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2012.726006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (2013). Sustainability topics for sectors: What do stakeholders want to know? Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/sustainability-topics.pdf

  • Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risks management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 425–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gompers, P. A., Ishii, J., & Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate governance and equity prices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 107–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guenster, N., Derwall, J., Bauer, R., & Koedijk, K. (2011). The economic value of corporate eco-efficiency. European Financial Management, 17(4), 679–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harji, K. (2008a). Social return on investment. Ottawa: Carleton Centre for Community Innovation, Carleton University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harji, K. (2008b). Expanded value added statement. Ottawa: Carleton Centre for Community Innovation, Carleton University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harji, K., & Hebb, T. (2010). Impact investing for social finance (pp. 1–20). Carleton: Carleton Centre for Community Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harji, K., & Jackson, E. T. (2012). Accelerating impact: Achievements, challenges and what’s next in the impact investing industry. New York: The Rockefeller Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harji, K., Reynolds, J., Best, H., & Jeyaloganathan, M. (2014). State of the nation – Impact investing in Canada (pp. 1–94). Toronto: MaRS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Ahuja, G. (1996). Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5, 30–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hässler, & Jung. (2015). In principles good. In K. Wendt (Ed.), Responsible investment banking. Cham: Springer https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783319103105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertrich, C., & Schäfer, H. (2015). More fun at lower risk. In K. Wendt (Ed.), Responsible investment banking. Cham: Springer. https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783319103105

  • Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IFC. (2010). International Finance Corporation (IFC) – Investing for impact. Available at https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/f3bee3004ef35927af47ef3eac88a2f8/Investing+for+Impact+19+Mar+2013+final.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

  • Ignatius. (2012). Unpacking the impact in impact investing. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/unpacking_the_impact_in_impact_investing

  • International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and Universalia Management Group. (n.d.). Organizational assessment framework. Ottawa.

    Google Scholar 

  • J.P. Morgan Social Finance. (2013). The impact investor survey a spotlight on the market. https://thegiin.org/assets/documents/pub/2014MarketSpotlight.PDF

  • Jackson, E. T. (2005). Participatory monitoring and evaluation. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (p. 296). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, E. T. (2013). Interrogating the theory of change: Evaluating impact investing where it matters most. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 3(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2013.776257.

    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. New York: The Rockefeller Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, And The Corporate Objective Function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiao, Y. (2010). Stakeholder welfare and firm value. Journal of Banking and Finance, 34, 2549–2561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiraporn, P., Jiraporn, N., Boeprasert, A., & Chang, K. (2013). Does corporate social responsibility (CSR) improve credit ratings? Evidence from geographic identification. Financial Management, 43, 505–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. A., Moorman, T. C., & Sorescu, S. (2009). A reexamination of corporate governance and equity prices. Review of Financial Studies, 22(11), 4753–4786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury, et al. (2005, Summer–Autumn). The emergence of global administrative law. JSTOR Law and Contemporary Problems, 68(3/4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Krlev, G., G. Glänzel, and G. Mildenberger. (2013). Capitalising social innovation. A short guide to the research for policy makers (1–23). Brussels: TEPSIE of the European Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, J., Will, M., Joshua, N., & Raúl, P. (2013). Evolution of an impact portfolio: From implementation to results (pp. 1–68). San Francisco: Sonen Capital.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laing, N., Long, C., Marcandalli, A., Matthews, J., Grahovac, A., & Featherby, J. (2012). The U.K. social investment market: The current landscape and a framework for investor decision making (pp. 1–24). London: Cambridge Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D. D., Humphrey, J. E., Benson, K. L., & Ahn, J. Y. K. (2010). Socially responsible investment fund performance: The impact of screening intensity. Accounting & Finance, 50(2), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2009.00336.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehner, O. M. (2012). Social entrepreneurship perspectives. Triangulated Approaches to Hybridity, University of Jyväskylä.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima, B. F., & Sanvicente, A. Z. (2013). Quality of corporate governance and cost of equity in Brazil. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 25(1), 72–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loew, T., Clausen, J., Hall, M., Loft, L., & Braun, S. (2009). Case studies on CSR and innovation: Company cases from Germany and the USA. Research report by future- verantwortung unternehmen, Institute4Sustainability, and Borderstep Institut für Innovation und Nachhaltigkeit. Available at: http://www.4sustainability.de/fileadmin/redakteur/bilder/Downloads/Publikationen/englische_Publikationen/Loew_Clausen_etal-Case_Studies_on_CSR_and_Innovation.pdf

  • Lyons, T. S., & Kickul, J. R. (2013). The social enterprise financing landscape: The lay of the land and new research on the horizon. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 3(2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2013-0045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, O. (2015). Development banking, ESG policies and the normativisation of good governance standards. In K. Wendt (Ed.), Responsible investment banking, risk management frameworks, sustainable financial innovation and Softlaw Standards (pp. 143–157). New York: Springer. ISBN: 978-3-319-10310 – 5 00.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M.-L., Westley, F. R., & Brodhead, T. (2012). Social finance intermediaries and social innovation. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 184–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2012.726020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New Philantrophic Capital. (2015). NPC’S manifesto 2015: A vision for change. Available at https://www.thinknpc.org/publications/npc-manifesto-2015/

  • Nicholls, A. (2010). The institutionalization of social investment: The interplay of investment logics and investor rationalities. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 70–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420671003701257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicklin, S. (2012). The power of advice in the UK sustainable and impact investment market (pp. 1–72). London: Bridges Ventures.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donohoe, N., Leijonhufvud, C., & Saltuk, Y. (2010). Impact investments: An emerging asset class (pp. 1–93). London: JPMorgan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011, January–February). Creating shared value. How to reinvent capitalism – and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2010). Green products: Using sustainable attributes to drive growth and value: Sustainable business solutions. Available at: http://www.pwc.com/us/en/corporate-sustainability-climate-change/assets/green-products-paper.pdf

  • PRI-UN Global Compact. (2013). The value-driver model: A tool for communicating the business value of sustainability, December 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renneboog, L., Ter Horst, J., & Zhang, C. (2008). Socially responsible investments: Institutional aspects, performance, and investor behavior. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32(9), 1723–1742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2007.12.039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reverte, C. (2012). The impact of better corporate social responsibility disclosure on the cost of equity capital. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19, 253–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, B. J. (2011). From fiduciary duties to fiduciary relationships for socially responsible investing: Responding to the will of beneficiaries. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 1(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.3763/jsfi.2010.0002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodin, J., & Brandenburg, M. (2014). The power of impact investing: Putting markets to work for profit and global good. Philadelphia, PA: Wharton Digital Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M. (2014). New frontiers of philanthropy: A guide to the new tools and new actors that are reshaping global philanthropy and social investing. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltuk, Y. (2012). A portfolio approach to impact investment (pp. 1–35). London: JPMorgan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltuk, Y., El Idrissi, A., Bouri, A., Mudaliar, & Schiff, H. (2014). Spotlight on the market – The impact investor survey (pp. 1–50). London: JPMorgan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, J., Juravle, C., Hedesström, T. M., & Hamilton, I. (2008). The heterogeneity of socially responsible investment. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(4), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9956-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiller, R. J. (2013). Capitalism and financial innovation. Financial Analysts Journal, 69(1), 21–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, W. G., & Kohers, T. (2002). The link between corporate social and financial performance: Evidence from the banking industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, 97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Social Investment Research Council. (2014). New specialist sources of capital for the social investment market. London: City of London.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative. (2005). A legal framework for the integration of environmental, social, and governance issues into institutional investment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vital Cap. (2014). Available at http://www.vitalcapfund.com

  • Wilson, K. (2014). New investment approaches for addressing social and economic challenges. In OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. (2013). From the margins to the mainstream: assessment of the impact investment sector and opportunities to engage mainstream investors (pp. 1–36). New York: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen Wendt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wendt, K. (2018). Positive Impact Investing: A New Paradigm for Future Oriented Leadership and Innovative Corporate Culture. In: Wendt, K. (eds) Positive Impact Investing. Sustainable Finance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10118-7_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics