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.

A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.

For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.

There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.

When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.

That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.

Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.

By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.

In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.

Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.

Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”

Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”

Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.

AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.

Future Returns: How Impact Investors Balance Objectives

AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.