Social businesses and impact investors make the world a better place – what matters is the intention, right? Not so simple. In this series, our contributors raise the uncomfortable questions you may prefer to avoid…
Development finance institutions say they invest where others will not. Yet they've set up investment standards that all but guarantee that their dollars flow to megafunds and big, profitable companies that don't really need their help.
There is almost no early-stage, innovation-friendly impact investing, says serial social entrepreneur Mitra Ardron. Should we just admit that all we can do is make impact investors feel good about applying band-aids without fixing the problem?
The more that impact measurement is relied on to shape investor decisions, the more worried we should be, says Dr Jess Daggers: the information gathered does not necessarily correspond with reality, and yet few take this risk into account.
The worldview baked into the Sustainable Development Goals is inherently flawed – based on the same paradigm that created today's problems. Are we addicted to quick-fix painkillers – and failing to address the underlying causes?
The B Corp idea disrupted entrenched narratives in business. But certification of companies like Nespresso shows that it must now evolve to embrace newer, bolder ideas in business – or risk being adapted to the needs of the “old economy”.
If we don’t try to change unfair systems – even if it means working with institutions we fundamentally disagree with – are we ignoring the root cause of the problem? It's complicated, says Migrateful founder Jess Thompson.
Recent criticism of ESG investing claims it’s harmful because it stops us making real changes. Are those of us in social enterprise and tech for good just as guilty of inadvertently tinkering around the edges?
