What Is Impact Investing Vs ESG

What Is Impact Investing Vs ESG

Do you wish to know what is impact investing vs ESG?

When first learning about sustainable investing approaches, this question puzzled me. From the outside, impact investing and ESG integration seemed closely aligned to enable social good.

Yet their divergence in practical application of concepts like impact measurement and return expectations significantly shapes outcomes.

Through a decade in finance, I saw this distinction play out firsthand. As our firm targeted gender lens early-stage ventures across East Africa, leadership emphasized contributing towards progress on SDG 5 while ensuring thorough impact reporting.

Yet several ESG funds we analyzed offered limited transparency into impact metrics despite large AuM. This personal experience showed me why intentionality and accountability around measurable impact matter greatly in driving change.

In this post, we’ll clearly break down the core characteristics of impact investing as compared to ESG to help bring clarity to investors exploring sustainable options.

We’ll also take a glimpse towards the future as sustainable investing gains more momentum.

Impact Investing: Investing to Drive Social and Environmental Solutions

Impact investing takes direct aim at funding solutions to global issues like poverty, inequality and climate change. The key trait that sets impact investors apart? Their clear intention target social or environmental impact alongside financial gain.

Impact investing actively seeks to place capital in businesses and funds working to solve pressing issues identified by the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Investments target returns ranging from below market to risk-adjusted market rate, but investors specifically intend for this capital to drive an intended impact.

Common areas of impact investment include:

  • Clean energy access
  • Gender lens investing
  • Affordable housing and healthcare
  • Financial inclusion
  • Sustainable agriculture
  • Empowerment of marginalized groups

Rather than broadly avoiding “harm” like some responsible investing approaches, these investments proactively aim to use investor capital as a tool to provide underserved populations with access to essential, life-improving goods and services

For example, an impact private equity fund could target acquiring and scaling up companies selling solar lanterns to off-grid rural communities in East Africa.

A gender lens VC fund might specifically invest in startups with female founders working on technological solutions to create economic opportunities for disadvantaged women globally.

In short – impact investors proactively put their capital towards progress on major social and environmental challenges.

Achieving Social and Environmental Impact

Impact measurement and management represents a core practice of impact investing. Leading impact investors carefully assess the expected impact of each prospective investment to set an impact baseline.

After investing, funds diligently measure progress towards these targets using key performance indicators (KPIs) tailored to the specific social or environmental goals.

Widely adopted impact measurement standards include:

Investors can leverage these catalogs to benchmark their investments’ impact against standardized metrics like: jobs created, renewable energy capacity added, households electrified and so on.

Over time, this rigorous measurement and management ensures invested capital continually progresses towards intended impact targets.

As opposed to philanthropy, impact investors do expect financial returns on investments as well. However, delivering outsized social or environmental impact remains the driving priority of capital deployment decisions.

Many impact funds target risk-adjusted, market rate returns to compensate investors adequately given levels of risk. However, some funds pursue below market return thresholds if it enables greater impact aligned with investor goals. Ultimately – impact investors intend for financial gain and societal good to work synergistically.

Targeting Financial Returns with Positive Outcomes

Impact investing comes in many shapes and sizes to accommodate investors with diverse preferences and risk profiles. These options allow participation from every type of investor including institutions, foundations, family offices and retail investors.

Common impact investing avenues include:

  • Private debt and credit funds
  • Private, venture and growth equity funds
  • Public equity funds and ETFs
  • Green, social impact, sustainability bonds
  • Real estate funds
  • Infrastructure funds

These give investors varied exposure to impact objectives like renewable energy finance, sustainable agriculture, microfinance and affordable housing across both emerging and developed markets.

Top impact investing sectors by assets under management include:

  • Microfinance – $14Bn
  • Energy access – $12Bn
  • Sustainable consumer products – $10Bn
  • Sustainable agriculture – $7.9Bn
  • Housing & community development – $7.4Bn

So whether retail or institutional, investors have options to build a portfolio that aligns personal values with financial goals across asset classes and return profiles. Critically, investor intent guides how these assets get managed and measured over time.

ESG Investing: Integrating Sustainability Factors into Financial Decisions

ESG represents an investment approach centered around inclusion of environmental, social and governance considerations into analysis and decisions. The concept has quickly moved from niche to mainstream in the investment community.

In 2022, sustainable investing assets reached $40 trillion globally, representing over 35% of all professionally managed assets. This represents a 43% increase since 2016 indicating surging investor demand.

But what exactly does ESG integration entail in practice?

Considering Environmental, Social and Governance Factors

The “E” in ESG refers to weighing environmental considerations around issues like resource efficiency, carbon emissions, clean technology, water use and waste management.

“S” covers social factors ranging from labor practices to product safety, privacy concerns to gender diversity policies.

Finally, “G” tackles monitoring governance issues such as executive pay, board independence, stakeholder transparency and audit controls.

Investors incorporate analysis around material ESG factors into various elements of the investment process including:

  • Stock/issuer analysis – How do ESG risks and opportunities influence earnings estimates and valuations?
  • Portfolio construction – Should certain sectors/industries be excluded or overweighted based on sustainability characteristics?
  • Risk management – How does managing ESG factors help mitigate downside portfolio risk?
  • Shareholder engagement – Can proxy voting, shareholder resolutions and engagement drive positive change?

This analysis supplements traditional financial modeling to enhance research. ESG integration strategists argue that these factors can be financially material and ignoring them may represent a blind spot leaving investors vulnerable.

Integrating ESG into Investment Analysis and Decisions

Investment managers employ varied approaches to bake ESG considerations into their process. Common ESG strategies include:

  • Negative/exclusionary screening – Excluding certain sectors, companies or practices based on ESG criteria
  • Positive/Best-in-Class screening – Targeting sectors, companies or projects selected for positive ESG characteristics
  • Sustainability themed investing – Proactively focusing capital on ESG areas like clean energy, green technology or sustainable agriculture
  • Impact/community investing on local factors like affordable housing
  • Corporate engagement + shareholder action – Using proxy votes, shareholder resolutions and engagement conversations to influence business practices on ESG issues

Investment vehicles that incorporate ESG factors span the gamut from mutual funds and ETFs to alternatives like real estate, infrastructure, venture capital and private equity. Both active and passive managers now offer options to suit investor preferences.

Critically, the common thread involves an intention to improve research and decision making by accounting for sustainability considerations linked to financial performance. 

This contrasts from impact investing where the intention centers on achieving measurable impact alongside financial returns.

What Is Impact Investing Vs ESG: Key Differences

Despite overlap in themes like sustainability, both approaches differ substantially in practical application regarding intent, measurement and transparency.

Intentionality of Impact

As outlined, the core distinction between ESG and impact investing lies in investor intention. Impact investors inject capital targeting specific, measurable social or environmental benefits leading to progress on societal issues.

  • Investments get selected based on impact potential then diligently managed towards impact KPIs. This drives capital allocation and engagement.

In contrast, ESG integration focuses squarely on improving risk adjusted financial returns for clients by baking sustainability analytics into traditional financial analysis. Here, ESG factors act as a supplementary analytical lens without a mandate for intentional impact.

  • Capital gets allocated simply towards investments with attractive risk adjusted return potential as influenced by ESG considerations.

So while impact investors use money as a tool explicitly targeting social/environmental solutions – ESG integration deploys capital targeting financial outperformance, influenced by an ESG lens.

Measurement and Transparency

Aligned to diverging intentions, impact measurement and transparency requirements also differ greatly between the approaches in practice.

Given the central goal of achieving social/environmental impact, impact investors and funds maintain high standards for measurement using accepted catalogues of impact metrics.

  • Ongoing impact performance data provides transparency while allowing course correction if investments fall short of stated impact expectations. Leading impact investors publish annual impact reports aligned to standards like the Operating Principles for Impact Management enabling performance benchmarking.

By contrast, ESG integration does not always require transparency through publishing of audited ESG performance data. In fact, many ESG funds provide limited visibility into specific sustainability metrics and outcomes.

  • This aligns with financial returns remaining the bottom line for ESG funds rather than direct impact results.

While positive for returns in some cases, limited transparency poses challenges for investors to assess if ESG integration translates into real world impact and progress.

Questions around potential “impact washing” also emerge if funds market sustainability but have limited externally validated impact or sustainability performance data.

Approach to Financial Returns

Given intention centers on impact – impact investors can tailor their expectations for risk and returns based on the type of social or environmental outcomes targeted.

Certain essential goods and services benefiting underserved groups may generate more modest revenues and stability rather than outsized upside.

  • As a result, impact investing funds can offer return profiles on a spectrum – from below market rate to risk-adjusted market rate benchmarks tailored to investors based on impact goals.

In contrast, ESG fund return objectives directly benchmark to traditional assets class indices like public equity and debt markets. Financial performance ranks as the top priority here rather than direct impact results.

  • Competitive risk-adjusted return profiles represent the central value proposition to investors. So most ESG vehicles target market or above market performance similar to traditional funds with an added sustainability analysis overlay.

This explains why many ESG funds get positioned as “not sacrificing returns” while impact investing sees a range of return expectations calibrated to investor priorities and targeted impact.

ESG as Component of Impact Investing

Despite differences in application, ESG considerations often do influence impact investing decisions as well. Assessing environmental, social and governance risks represents one input into the impact underwriting process for potential investments.

However, this analysis supplements rather than substitutes the rigorous impact examination assessing potential to drive progress on targeted SDG goals in underserved communities. Intentional impact counts as the key threshold issue guiding capital allocation.

So in summary, ESG integration and impact investing adopt overlapping concepts but diverge in their practical application:

Impact InvestingESG Integration
Intentional impact mandateNo Impact mandate
Impact measurement against targetsLimited transparency
Range of return expectationsMarket rate return targets
ESG as input to impact diligenceESG as core analytical lens

Thought both aim to enable sustainability through finance, the on-the-ground execution differs significantly between the two approaches.

Similarities Between ESG and Impact Investing Approaches

Despite differences, impact investing and ESG integration share common ground as growing components of sustainable finance across global capital markets.

Growing Interest in Sustainable Investment

The surge of inflows into sustainable investment vehicles signals how both ESG and impact align with investor intentions today. Consumers rank sustainability as a personal priority while a majority believe addressing societal issues ranks as highly important for brands.

Pension plans, sovereign wealth funds and private banking clients echo this prioritization of stakeholder capitalism in allocating capital. This common interest continues to fuel headline growth.

Further, asset managers now sell ESG and impact fund products to retail and institutions side by side given large unmet investor appetite.

So at a high level, these approaches satisfy converging investor, consumer and asset owner preferences despite divergent frameworks.

Contribution Towards UN Sustainable Development Goals

Leaders in both ESG and impact investing cite contribution towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as driving motivation for their work.

These 17 internationally adopted sustainability objectives range from no poverty, to climate action down to sustainable communities. Asset owners and investment managers acknowledge the scale of capital required to fund incremental progress.

As a result, ESG and impact pools of capital both contribute towards SDG targets in areas like renewable energy, infrastructure development, SME finance and sustainable agriculture among others. Estimates indicate the UN SDG shortfall at $5-7 trillion annually through 2030.

So despite different frameworks, all capital formation focused on sustainable development fuels progress on these shared global priorities. Even if tracking exact impact proves complex.

Determining the Best Fit for Your Priorities

When exploring sustainable investing options, determining which approach best suits your personal priorities matters most.

Aligning Investments with Your Values

Both ESG and impact investing appeal to investors looking to align capital allocation with their ethics and values. Once again, consumer surveys reveal the desire for investments matching priorities around climate action, sustainability along with diversity, equity and inclusion.

Yet given the focus on intentional impact – impact investing most closely satisfies investors specifically seeking measurable influence towards solutions. 

ESG provides more generalized support for global sustainable business activities through sustainability-focused investor stewardship.

So formalizing your sustainability objectives will provide clarity here.

Assessing Portfolio Risk and Return Preferences

Further, risk and return expectations often help determine suitability of ESG integration or a dedicated impact portfolio allocation.

Given competitive performance benchmarks, most ESG options meet needs for clients prioritizing financial returns first that also desire sustainability characteristics. The efficiency of public markets combined with diversification provides solid options here.

Meanwhile impact investments better suit investors comfortable optimizing returns to focus on targeted social/environmental results.

For wealthier individuals and families, carving out 5-20% of portfolios for private impact investing while minimizing fee drag can produce positive outcomes.

Institutions like foundations and endowments also increasingly set aside impact portfolio allocations targeting program-related priorities. Again, intentionality behind financial return expectations should anchor these commitments.

Availability of Investment Options

Investor type also practically determines available options. Retail investors possess more limited impact investing options beyond public equity/fixed income ESG funds. Small minimums through robo-advisors proactively increase opportunities here.

Meanwhile, most private equity and debt impact investing funds carry higher minimums given more hands on operations and due diligence requirements.

This puts participation largely in scope for institutional investors and ultra high net worth channels until democratization progresses.

Either way, voicing expectations to advisors and wealth managers will encourage product development matching sustainable preferences – whether ESG or impact aligned.

Examples of ESG Factors That Impact Investing Considers

ESG factors that impact investing considers include environmental, social, and governance criteria. Environmental factors assess a company’s impact on the environment, such as its carbon footprint, water use, and clean technology initiatives.

Social factors evaluate the company’s relationships with its employees, suppliers, customers, and the communities in which it operates. Governance factors focus on the company’s leadership, executive pay, internal controls, and shareholder rights.

These factors are used to determine whether companies are making sustainable and responsible choices, aligning with the goals of impact investing to achieve specific, measurable, and positive social or environmental outcomes.

The Future of Sustainable Investing

Regardless of framework variations today, sustainable investing via ESG integration and impact intentionality shows no signs of slowing down. If anything, market momentum points to further mainstream adoption driving future growth.

Continued Market Growth Projected

Industry analysts across financial and sustainability sectors project continued uptrends in sustainable investing assets over the coming decade.

One report forecasts ESG mandated assets growing from $35 trillion to over $50 trillion by 2025 on a global basis. This suggests 25%+ CAGR showing no slowdown in asset flows or product innovation.

Similarly, the latest impact investing survey reveals AUIM set to nearly double from $715Bn in 2020 to up to $1.2 trillion by 2025. Again suggesting high double digit growth in line with demand trends.

With every major financial institution now focused on this space and trillions in client assets up for grabs, all signs point to sustainability moving from niche to utterly mainstream in short order.

Increasing Standardization and Regulation

Industry experts anticipate increasing regulation and standardization across sustainable investing approaches over the next 3-5 years.

As investor demand for verifiable sustainability performance measures grows, policymakers take notice. Already, the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation requires mandated climate and sustainability disclosure.

In the U.S., the Securities and Exchange Commission intensifies focus on climate risk reporting with broad ESG oversight also under discussion. The Department of Labor also proposes stricter ERISA pension oversight over sustainability claims.

Industry groups also make progress establishing unified standards and reporting frameworks applicable across funds and portfolios. This includes efforts like the Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and Integrated Reporting ((IR) guidelines.

The goal involves enhanced transparency on sustainability outcomes, further accountability and scrutiny of impact and ESG claims industry-wide.

This may provide additional clarity to investors seeking verifiable social and environmental performance data alongside financials.

Innovation in Sustainable Financial Products

Even with standardization, Wall Street continues innovating new ESG and impact products almost daily to meet demand. Recent growth in sustainability-linked loans, bonds, alternative investment structures and derivatives points to further proliferation.

Technology integration enables fintech upstarts to offer fractional impact investing, clean energy tokens and sustainable robo-advisors as well. Incumbents also make progress on total portfolio sustainability analytics – giving investors comprehensive visibility.

FAQs

What Is The Difference Between Esg And Sustainable Investing?

ESG investing incorporates analysis of environmental, social and governance factors into investment decisions with the goal of improving risk management and financial returns.

It acts as an additional analytical lens. Sustainable investing is a broader umbrella term encompassing approaches like ESG along with more impact-focused strategies trying to drive sustainability solutions.

Many use terms interchangeably but important nuances exist around objectives.

What Is The Difference Between Esg And Sri Investing?

Socially responsible investing (SRI) aims to align investments with ethical values by including positive ESG factors while avoiding sectors/activities deemed objectionable.

Methods like negative screening enable SRI funds to exclude tobacco, weapons or gambling stocks for example. ESG analysis provides a framework for SRI priorities while SRI products represent an application of ESG data. Most view SRI as a predecessor to modern ESG integration.

What Is The Difference Between Esg And Ethical Investing?

Ethical investing broadly encompasses strategies aligning moral principles and money management. Alongside SRI, it seeks to avoid objectionable activities that contradict an investor’s belief system.

ESG integration can enable ethical investing by identifying sustainability leaders and laggards. But the two terms differ as ethical investing stems from values while ESG focuses on financial analysis. Ethical investors likely utilize ESG inputs to make decisions.

Why Is It Called Impact Investing?

The term “impact investing” communicates the central goal of this approach – to intentionally drive social and environmental impact alongside financial returns. Investments get selected and managed to optimize significant, measurable impact first rather than focusing chiefly on profit.

The “impact” label clearly signals investors aim to fund concrete solutions having verifiable impact vs. only seeking sustainability or ethics.

What Is Esg Investing Also Known As?

Alongside ESG, common terms used interchangeably include sustainable investing, socially responsible investing (SRI), ethical investing and green investing.

While nuances exist, asset managers themselves often brand ESG products under several banners which causes confusion. Recent surveys reveal the array of terminology poses challenges for investors to clearly differentiate approaches.

What Is The Difference Between Esg And Green Finance?

Green finance refers to the funding of environmentally friendly projects and economic activities that preserve ecosystems and biodiversity.

This primarily covers climate-aligned initiatives around renewable energy, green transport, pollution prevention and climate adaptation.

ESG more broadly encompasses social and governance criteria alongside environmental factors.

But significant overlap exists as “E” makes up a central pillar of ESG analysis tracking similar green finance metrics around emissions, energy efficiency etc.

What Is The Main Difference Between Csr And Esg?

CSR, short for corporate social responsibility, involves business policies and initiatives that positively impact social causes and environment.

Companies self-report on CSR programs showcasing commitments to stakeholders like communities, customers and employees.

ESG metrics then aim to quantify CSR performance and impact through indicators tracking environment, ethical governance and labor practices. Investors use ESG data to compare CSR results across companies.

What Are Examples Of Impact Investing?

Common examples include funds focused on financial inclusion through microfinance, SME investing aimed at underserved groups like women entrepreneurs as well as direct private equity investments into healthcare clinics, clean energy providers and sustainable agriculture firms in emerging markets.

Impact investors also participate in social impact and sustainability bond issuances funding affordable housing, access to education, food security and job creation for vulnerable populations.

Conclusion

As we’ve explored, impact investing and ESG adoption both power capital towards urgent sustainability solutions. Yet impact investors explicitly target measurable community progress while ESG focuses squarely on financial returns influenced by an E lens.

For clients seeking intentional, verifiable social/environmental impact, impact investing strategies better match convictions.

As standards rise across approaches, intentional, verified impact will act as the key differentiator rather than terminology alone.

1 thought on “What Is Impact Investing Vs ESG”

  1. Pingback: What Are The Problems With Esg Investing: 8 Key Challenges Facing Sustainable Finance -

Comments are closed.