I encourage investors to get savvier about what equals good assessment of impact, and how to credibly know that
Catherine Dun Rappaport
Read the transcript:
Evidence informed is a really interesting concept. Impact investors can call for investments that align goals or principles of good impact measurement and management, and that is one way in which they can influence the field.
I think that increased calls for transparency about how communities are engaged, and I think a real desire among some investors to hear about and know about, with some credibility, that communities served are reflected and respected in whatever is being financed. I think that’s a place that impact investors and can encourage certain types of practice. But I do think that a lot hinges on the extent of which there are viable ways for assessing that.
I can report on everything, but if nobody checks or looks at what’s under the hood, you’re depending on my integrity. And there’s no problem for me or for BlueHub, and I’m not trying to cast shade on others, but I think that that’s part of the evolution in the work. They can ask for certain things, then how do you know what is credible.
On social impact bonds
One thing I’m pretty interested in and would really like to see impact investors go deeper on, is investing in social impact bonds. These are really thoughtful and well researched ways to support demonstrated positive impact for various disenfranchised communities.
I think that’s a place where there is a return on those investments. The way they work in the United States is usually the impact investors invest first and their assumption is that there’ll be a repayment through government sources. So there’s a whole lot of political complexity to that, but I think that is a really wonderful place where the combination of impact investors (money), desire to invest in things that actually really do achieve impact, and partnering with entities and organisations that know how to measure that and have the payments be linked to what is positive impact and, because I know the organisations that do it, are really carefully and thoughtfully crafted with community. I think that is a really wonderful place where the nexus of investment and ideology and research can come together in a way that is tremendous.
I also think investing in entities, such as my own, that have really clear systems for assessing impact and supporting it in partnership, I do think that’s another place where investors can go deeper. I encourage them to get savvier about what equals good assessment of impact, and how to credibly know that, and how to do that with humility and in partnership with communities served. Sometimes that’s a hard thing for entities with a lot of money and power to do, but I’ve also seen it done. There are wonderful resources on that, but that’s a great place to take that tremendous power that comes with money and use it to support impact. And to use it in a way that supports impact that is trustable, and knowable and measurable and, in our case and in others, that has been developed in partnership with communities. Those are other ways that impact investors can do wonderful things to support.
How can impact investors engage with think tanks and what could be the benefits of this collaboration?
It’s hard to give one answer to that question when, at least in my mind, think tanks are so many different things. Impact investors- in fact first investors- could support research engagement with think tanks that are engaging with community, with think tanks that are doing research with community to try to figure out together what kinds of investments would seed prosperity and also, seriously and importantly, what kinds of impact risks are inherent in certain propositions. I do think that is one that gets talked about increasingly which is great but without connecting with communities on the ground I think well-intentioned investors can actually, as you well know, do some good but also cause terrible harm.
Connecting with organisations and entities that are truly grounded in and serving the communities that are ultimately the recipients of investments is a really important place to go deep.
If think tanks are doing that, that’s a terrific way to do it.
The term think tank is so polarising to some and for many means an ideological rigidity — it’s not just open thought, but rather think a certain way and have a certain political perspective. And I’m quite certain that some investors are really happy to engage with think tanks with that in mind, but I think many are not. So, trying to encourage investors who are going to support really meaningful thoughtful exchange around what can be invested in, how to surface unintended negative consequences, and things like that. Supporting that kind of research is a beautiful thing. But that may be more grant investing than expected return.
Understanding the work of think tanks
Surfacing practices that work to support and advance social good in one way or another. That’s how I’d like to think of them, that’s how I think of them. When I think about my over-decade career at Abt, I think, ‘Yeah, I’m down with that, I was part of that, I’m psyched to have been part of that’. When I think about the work that I do now, I’m an IMM practitioner, so I’m an in-house consultant that helps my organisation to understand, report out on, generate resources for and increase impact. That’s how I walk the walk as a practitioner researcher entity.
It’s the same type of skill set, but were I investing, particularly internationally, I think I would want to work with what I think you and your team think of as ‘think tanks’. I would want to work with entities that had connections and relationships with the communities I was supporting or wanted to support with my investment. And I would want to know that the entities, the think tanks doing that work- it’s so easy to say this and it’s so hard to do- but were authentically engaging with the universe of constituents who are likely to be impacted by my investment. What does that mean? That means everybody. it means the investees, but it also means the folks who don’t get the money. It means thinking about the environmental ramifications of an investment in the short-term and in the long-term.
Aspirationally, I might hope that, particularly internationally but here too though, think tanks have tentacles, connections to communities where they are actually facilitating, holding investors accountable for achieving community priorities.
I actually think the most effective way to do that kind of work is in humble partnership with communities served.
Acumen actually does some really good work this way, and others do too. Efforts to engage participants and engage community, and get feedback and have that feedback be something that is digestible and that can actually inform practice. That could be a really — and is, I think in some cases- a meaningful thing that think tanks can do.
