Neil Reeder

Measuring impact in impact investing: an analysis of the predominant strength that is also its greatest weakness

Compared to other forms of socially responsible investment, a prominent feature of impact investing is measurement of the social and environmental return (SER) that it aims to generate. Much effort has been undertaken to develop such measurements, but progress is patchy. This paper contains an overview of first principles, making explicit the subjective interpretation of SER by investors and outlining tensions around breadth of coverage; rigour in attribution of impact versus practicality and flexibility; and the very concept of ‘a return’. Interviews with impact investors covering environmental issues, social enterprises, microfinance firms, and Social Impact Bond contracts highlight three distinctive sets of practice – ‘System building’, ‘Case by case assessment, and ‘Intermediate outcome perspectives’ – as to whose gains should be counted, how to structure assessment, and what forms of assessment are viewed as legitimate. Of these, ‘System building’ approaches appear to be advancing most, but the challenges that it faces will be hard to overcome.

New development: UK government ambitions for a preventative agenda— fact or ‘futurewash’?

Local government in England is responsible for many preventative actions, from youth work to encouraging households to reduce levels of waste. A high priority for prevention would imply maintained funding levels, or at least a decline no worse than overall. However, analysis suggests that preventative spend by English local authorities declined from 32.4% of spend in 2010/11 to 30.6% in 2011/ 12: a proportional fall of 5.5%. Similar effects have been observed in other European countries. This suggests that short-termism is taking precedence as budget cuts hit.