IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v201y2025i1d10.1007_s10551-024-05788-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Lauren Kaufmann

    (University of Virginia)

  • Helet Botha

    (University of Michigan-Dearborn)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Lauren Kaufmann & Helet Botha, 2025. "Who Loses in Win-Win Investing? A Mixed Methods Study of Impact Risk," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 201(1), pages 219-234, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:201:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-024-05788-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-024-05788-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-024-05788-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-024-05788-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:201:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-024-05788-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.