Key Findings

Public Policy and Impact

How Public and Private Entities Can Better Collaborate on Issues in the Impact Space

For better collaboration between public and private entities in the impact space, respondents expressed the importance of creative innovation and partnership, highlighting the strengths each sector can bring to efforts. “[This] should not be seen as an us versus them scenario. We need to be better about positioning this as good for everybody and essential for the planet,” emphasized one Member.

Responses emphasized the need for increased dialogue between entities; placing an impact lens on all functions; publishing case studies to demonstrate potential for success; developing more universally shared dialogue, measures, and standards around these issues; more opportunities to engage in shared learning; and a push for better incentives for all parties.

“Government policies and education systems that incentivize and spur innovation and entrepreneurship are critical and largely absent in most countries,” said one respondent. Responses also indicated that tax breaks, grants, and other incentive models need to be more informed by the realities the private sector faces, and governments should engage more with private entities to create effective incentives. Multiple responses impressed the need to break down silos between stakeholders to allow the private sector to educate and guide the public sector in creating incentives and regulations, as the public sector may not always be aware of emerging technologies or innovations at the same rate as the private sector.

Some pushed for a classic “carrots and sticks” model to encourage successful government involvement in achieving impact goals, marking incentives and regulations together as the solution. Conversely, one respondent explained that perhaps “collaboration” is a distraction from a larger issue: “Governments have to have the backbone to regulate large-scale institutional actors such as banks and pension funds to integrate impact into their operations and incentive systems. I think large-scale actors often use collaboration as a means to deter regulation but only move incrementally as a result.”

ESG initiatives provide an interesting case study of how private sector demands can inform government regulation to yield positive results. Although the current rhetoric around ESG efforts and regulations seems to be a source of frustration for some, a 69% majority of respondents indicated that the increasingly widespread adoption of ESG by investors (both institutional and retail) is broadly positive for impact investing. ESG’s mainstreaming came as the result of decades of efforts within the private sector, eventually resulting in the coined acronym and becoming prevalent enough to warrant government regulation. The views on collaborative learning between the private and public sectors reflect the hope that continued progress can be made more quickly and efficiently.

Responses particularly focused on finding new models for connecting government, corporate, and individual goals. For instance, some recommended investing public money into early-stage tech and R&D rather than matured technologies. Others suggested creating a globally-used legal structure to track progress within the field or reform in legal and regulatory interpretations of fiduciary duty. Shifting from short-term to longer-term strategic goals for impact investing, an increase in Pay-for-Success contracts, or new avenues through which governments can deploy capital, were also among recommendations for improving government and corporate collaboration.

Influence of the US Presidential Election

Note: The 2024 Survey was conducted in March/April of 2024, before Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee or JD Vance became Donald Trump’s running mate. Results and quotes below may be seen differently due to changes that later occurred in the election.

When asked how the results of the US presidential election might affect their impact investing strategies or decision-making, the majority of respondents were closely split between (1) concerns that a Trump victory could hinder advancement and (2) confidence that the results will not disrupt their individual approach and dedication to impact investing. Many expressed concern about further politicization of an issue that should be non-partisan in its efforts to improve outcomes for all. One respondent commented, “I expect the federal government will be weaponized to oppose impact-oriented markets on many, many fronts.” Others cited a similar worry that impact investing would become lumped in with “woke capitalism” and demonized as part of left-wing politics by a more right-wing administration.

A primary point for those leery of a Trump victory was the potential for regulatory actions, particularly over climate, energy, and economic development. “The upcoming election will determine how the government not only sets its spending priorities, but also regulatory action, enforcement, and priority setting. We will either continue playing offense against the challenges of our time, or defense against a regressionist governmental actor,” predicted one GIL. Although many were cynical about the potential effects of a Trump presidency on important regulatory actions, most described this outcome as a challenge to progress but not a complete impasse.

Responses claiming the outcome would not greatly impact their strategies or decision-making were consistently aligned with their conviction that impact investing is not tied to the political landscape of the US alone. While respondents acknowledged that one candidate or another may increase or decrease hurdles, most expressed that those would not be significant enough to warrant changes in strategy. One respondent argued, “Generally speaking, I don’t anticipate the presidential election having a material impact on my decision making. I think for those looking for an excuse not to participate, certain policies can significantly affect their activities.”

Some respondents even indicated that changes in the US administration are not where the real impact will come, expressing that progress in Europe helps boost the global landscape and that “Asia is the dominant continent” that could begin influencing strategy.

But even for those who acknowledged the possible influence of US politics on the field, they expressed confidence in the purpose of the work driving progress. “I think approaches might be different but I’ve found that political center can come together around good policy that utilizes principles of free enterprise and capitalism to address social problems and benefit society,” stated one respondent.

Despite division in perspectives regarding the influence of the US presidential election, survey respondents all firmly agreed on the importance of impact investing. One respondent summarized the case for impact investing regardless of the political landscape, saying, “I have been making impact investments for 30+ years, through many different administrations. Our north star has been and will remain the same: building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world.”