Who Loses in Win-Win Investing? A Mixed Methods Study of Impact Risk

IF 5.9 1区 哲学 Q1 BUSINESS
Lauren Kaufmann, Helet Botha
{"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.

Abstract Image

双赢投资中谁是输家?影响风险的混合方法研究
现有的学术研究探讨了社会企业投资者如何衡量积极影响,但很少关注负面影响或积极影响的局限性,这表明有必要研究 "影响风险"。影响风险是指影响与预期不同的可能性。在本文中,我们将研究在实践中如何考虑影响风险。首先,通过长达一年的数据收集工作,包括对 124 位社会企业投资者的访谈,我们首次记录了从业者对社会企业风险的考虑。通过这项定性研究,我们提出了与社会企业风险相关的认知机制的两个假设。其次,我们通过对在线样本(N = 435)进行基于小故事的实验来验证这些假设。我们发现,以社会企业投资行业为代表的双赢商业观点会导致对社会企业风险的考虑不足。出于道德原因,对社会企业风险考虑不足是很重要的:由于受益人--人类和地球--迫切需要真正的解决方案,投资者和学术界应该认真对待社会企业风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
265
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信