{"title":"Who Loses in Win-Win Investing? A Mixed Methods Study of Impact Risk","authors":"Lauren Kaufmann, Helet Botha","doi":"10.1007/s10551-024-05788-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Existing scholarship grapples with how impact investors measure positive impacts, but little attention has been paid to negative impact or limitations to positive impact, indicating a need to study “impact risk.” Impact risk refers to the likelihood that impact will be different than expected. In this paper, we study how impact risk is considered in practice. First, through a yearlong data collection effort including interviews with 124 impact investors, we are the first, to our knowledge, to document the consideration of impact risk by practitioners. From this qualitative study, we develop two hypotheses about cognitive mechanisms related to impact risk. Second, we test these hypotheses through a vignette-based experiment with an online sample (N = 435). We find that win–win views of business, exemplified by the impact investing industry, can lead to inadequate consideration of impact risk. Inadequate consideration of impact risk matters for ethical reasons: with beneficiaries—people and planet—in urgent need of real solutions, investors and academics should take impact risk seriously.</p>","PeriodicalId":15279,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Ethics","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05788-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Existing scholarship grapples with how impact investors measure positive impacts, but little attention has been paid to negative impact or limitations to positive impact, indicating a need to study “impact risk.” Impact risk refers to the likelihood that impact will be different than expected. In this paper, we study how impact risk is considered in practice. First, through a yearlong data collection effort including interviews with 124 impact investors, we are the first, to our knowledge, to document the consideration of impact risk by practitioners. From this qualitative study, we develop two hypotheses about cognitive mechanisms related to impact risk. Second, we test these hypotheses through a vignette-based experiment with an online sample (N = 435). We find that win–win views of business, exemplified by the impact investing industry, can lead to inadequate consideration of impact risk. Inadequate consideration of impact risk matters for ethical reasons: with beneficiaries—people and planet—in urgent need of real solutions, investors and academics should take impact risk seriously.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Business Ethics publishes only original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business that bring something new or unique to the discourse in their field. Since its initiation in 1980, the editors have encouraged the broadest possible scope. The term `business'' is understood in a wide sense to include all systems involved in the exchange of goods and services, while `ethics'' is circumscribed as all human action aimed at securing a good life. Systems of production, consumption, marketing, advertising, social and economic accounting, labour relations, public relations and organisational behaviour are analysed from a moral viewpoint. The style and level of dialogue involve all who are interested in business ethics - the business community, universities, government agencies and consumer groups. Speculative philosophy as well as reports of empirical research are welcomed. In order to promote a dialogue between the various interested groups as much as possible, papers are presented in a style relatively free of specialist jargon.