Future Returns: How Impact Investors Balance Objectives

Impact investors aim to achieve specific, positive social or environmental goals such as creating more affordable housing, or reducing reliance on fossil fuels, but they do so to earn market returns too, while weighing other standard investment considerations such as risk and liquidity.

That’s a key finding of “Impact Investing Decision-Making: Insights on Financial Performance,” a report published last week by the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) that assesses investor attitudes toward financial performance based on outstanding studies by outside firms and an analysis of financial performance that was gleaned from its annual survey of impact investors.

“What’s important here, and what we’re delighted about, is that financial performance is an important consideration for impact investors, but they are really looking at it taking into account a number of considerations,” says Dean Hand, director of research at the GIIN.

To weigh impact alongside performance is not unusual in the sense that traditional market investors also weigh a number of things. Risk and return, for instance, are factors commonly taken into consideration in balance with one another.

To invest in an emerging market company might lead to higher returns than a similar investment in a U.S. firm, but it’s riskier, bearing a higher potential of falling apart, so investors have to decide how much risk they are willing to stomach to get the returns they want.

The GIIN’s survey results have shown that impact investors generally get the balance they are seeking—nearly 88% in the most recent survey say that their portfolios meet or exceed their expectations for returns.

But when investors care about creating a positive social or environmental impact, they also weigh traditional investment considerations, such as liquidity—do they need their investment cash back soon or can they wait? If the latter, an investor may be more willing to invest in a private equity fund with a longer time horizon, and a different set of impact outcomes than might be available via a green bond, for instance.

If they are a more conservative investor, too, not willing to shoulder a lot of risk—a highly rated green bond may be just the thing.

The Importance of Manager Selection

The GIIN’s report looked at how impact investments in private markets have performed, culling data from available research by groups such as Cambridge Associates and Symbiotics as well as its own investor survey.

Private-equity impact investments, for instance, can deliver high returns, outperforming the S&P 500 index by 15%, according to a study by the International Finance Corp., although a University of California study found the median impact fund had an internal rate of return (IRR) of 6.4% compared with 7.4% for the median “impact-agnostic” fund.

And results can vary widely. The GIIN’s survey data showed that the top 10% of private-equity portfolios in emerging markets had realized returns of more than 29% while the bottom 10% had returns below 6%.

As a result, the GIIN finds that fund manager selection matters, not just in terms of quality, Hand says, but in helping the investor understand “whether or not they are achieving what they want both in terms of financial performance and impact performance.”

Investors also have to ask the right questions, Hand says. For example, it’s important to ask questions like: What specific impact results a manager is getting? How are those results measured? How do you convey this information to investors?

Where these have been successful, particularly in impact investing, is where the AO and AM work together to derive what results they are looking for, what their objectives are, and how they are going to report on those results.

“Good asset-owner and asset-manager relationships are built on a close working relationship,” Hand says. “Where these have been successful, particularly in impact investing, is where the asset owner and asset manager work together to derive what results they are looking for, what their objectives are, and how they are going to report on those results.”

Performance in Private Debt, Real Assets

According to the report, private debt funds focused on impact have tended to provide low-risk returns, as most investors expect, while delivering stability as well as diversification to impact portfolios.

The GIIN survey data showed average returns for impact debt funds ranged from 8% for developed market funds to 11% for emerging market funds, while Symbiotics data found a weighted average yield of 7.6% for fixed-income impact funds, the report said.

Investing in real assets, such as real estate and timberland, can lead to good returns, but the results vary widely depending on the time horizon as well as the type of investment, the report found. Investors surveyed by the GIIN reported returns ranging from 8% to 23%—again, pointing to the need for investors to select the right asset managers.

Case Studies

To give a sense of how experienced impact investors balance all these factors, the report offers examples from five experienced impact investors.

IDP Foundation, a private nonprofit focused on access to education and poverty alleviation, invests for impact from its endowment as well as through program-related investments. The foundation cares about achieving high impact but also competitive, market-rate financial returns.

The GIIN looked at five major factors the foundation weighs before deciding on an investment: financial return objectives, impact objectives, financial risk, impact risk, resource capacity, and liquidity constraints.

It turns out IDP considers its financial return and impact objectives to be “very important,” while financial risk—or the volatility of expected returns—and impact risk are “important.” The foundation’s resource capacity is less important, as it leans on a consulting firm as an advisor, and screen service to make sure it doesn’t invest in anything that violates its impact goals.

“What we hope by these spotlights is that it will give investors an idea of how those things are actually playing out so they can match that in their own decision making,” Hand says.

Luke Michel has already lived through two technology overhauls in his career, first desktop publishing in the 1980s and online publishing later on. But AI? He’s had enough.

So when his employer, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, made an early-retirement offer to some staff last year, the 68-year-old content strategist decided to speed up his exit. Before, he had expected to work a couple more years.

“The time and energy you have to devote to learning a whole new vocabulary and a whole new skill set, it wasn’t worth it,” he said.

It isn’t that he’s shunning artificial intelligence—he is learning Spanish with the help of Anthropic’s Claude. But, at this point, he’s less than eager to endure all the ways the technology promises to upend work.

“I just want to use it for my own purposes and not someone else’s,” he said.

After rising for decades and then hovering around 40% in the 2010s, the share of Americans over 55 years old in the workforce has slipped to 37.2%, the lowest level in more than 20 years.

The financial cushion of rising home equity and stock-market returns is driving some of the decline, economists and retirement advisers say.

But for some older professionals, money is only part of the equation.

They say they don’t want to spend the last years of their career going through the tumult of AI adoption, which has brought new tools, new expectations and a lot of uncertainty.

Many people retire when key elements of their work lives are disrupted at once, said Robert Laura , co-founder of the Retirement Coaches Association and an expert on the psychology of retirement.

“Maybe their autonomy is being challenged or changed, their friends are leaving the workplace, or they disagree with the company’s direction,” he said.

“When two or three of these things show up, that’s when people start to opt out.”

“AI is a big one,” he adds. “It disrupts their autonomy, their professionalism.”

Michel, whose work required overseeing and strategizing on website content, has been here before.

When desktop publishing arrived in the 1980s, he was a graphic designer using triangles and rubber cement.

The internet’s arrival changed everything again. Both developments required new skills, and he was energized by the challenge of learning alongside colleagues and peers.

It felt different this time around. “Your battery doesn’t hold a charge as long as it used to,” he said.

He would rather spend his energy volunteering, making art, going to operas and chairing the Council on Aging in North Andover, Mass., where he lives.

In an AARP survey last summer of 5,000 people 50 and over, 25% of those who planned to retire sooner than expected counted work stress and burnout as factors.

About half of those retired said they had left work at least partly because they had the financial security to do so.

In general, older Americans are less likely than younger counterparts to use AI, research shows.

About 30% of people from ages 30 to 49 said they used ChatGPT on the job, nearly double the share of those 50 and older, according to a 2025 Pew Research Center survey of more than 5,000 adults.

Baby boomers and members of Generation X also experienced the sharpest declines in confidence using AI technology, according to a ManpowerGroup survey of more than 13,900 workers in 19 countries.

“We as employers aren’t doing a good enough job saying (to older workers), we value the skills that you already have, so much so that we want to invest in you to help you do your job better,” says Becky Frankiewicz , ManpowerGroup’s chief strategy officer.

Jennifer Kerns’s misgivings about AI contributed to her departure last month from GitHub, where the 60-year-old worked as a program manager.

Coming from a family of artists, she said, it offends her that AI models train on the creative work of people who aren’t compensated for their intellectual property. And she worries about AI’s effect on people’s critical-thinking skills.

So she was dismayed when GitHub, a Microsoft-owned hosting service for software projects, began investing heavily in AI products and expecting employees to incorporate AI into much of their work. In employee-engagement surveys, the company had begun asking them to rate their AI usage on a scale of 1 to 5.

When it came time to write reports and reviews, colleagues would suggest that she use ChatGPT.

“I’d be like, ‘I have no idea how to use that and I have no interest in using AI to write anything for me,’” she said.

It would have been more prudent to work until she was closer to Medicare eligibility, she said. But by waiting until her children were out of college and some of her stock grants had vested, the math worked.

Her first act as a nonworking person: a solo trip to Scotland, where she took a darning workshop and learned how to repair sweaters.

“The opposite of AI,” she said.

Employers already under pressure to cut workers—such as in the tech industry—may welcome some of these retirements, said Gad Levanon , chief economist at Burning Glass Institute, which studies labor-market data.

“The more people retire, the fewer they have to let go,” he said.

Some of the savviest tech users are also balking at sticking around for the AI upheaval. Terry Grimm, who worked in IT for 40 years, retired from his senior software consultant role at 65 last May.

His firm had just been acquired by a bigger firm, which meant learning and integrating the parent company’s AI and other tech tools into his work.

Until then, Grimm expected he might work a couple more years, though he felt that he probably had enough saved to retire.

“I just got to the point where I was spending 40 hours at work and then 20 hours training and studying,” said Grimm, who has since moved with his wife from the Dallas area to a housing development on a golf course in El Dorado, Ark.

“I’m like, ‘I’ll let the younger guys do this.’”

Future Returns: How Impact Investors Balance Objectives

Their careers spanned the personal computing, internet and smartphone waves. But some older workers see AI’s arrival as the cue to exit.