Impact Investing Won’t Save Capitalism

ECONOMICS & SOCIETY

by Alan Schwartz and Reuben Finighan

July 17, 2020

Suzanne Clements/Stocksy

Next month will be the anniversary of the U.S. Business Roundtable’s 2019 call for a
shift from “shareholder capitalism” toward “stakeholder capitalism.” Business leaders
asked us to imagine a transformed world, but a bat virus in Wuhan had its own
ambitious plans — and has, for the time being, transformed the world in quite another
way. It has thrust government to the center, pushing business, whatever its approach to
capitalism, to the sidelines.

Nobody could reasonably expect business alone to fix the pandemic. Nonetheless, some
investors under the banner of “impact investing” argue that business alone will be able
to fix the other big problems ailing the global economy, such as climate change or global
/
female literacy, without sacrificing commercial returns. This view has garnered interest
from major banks, consultancies, business lobby groups, and even former prime
ministers. One of impact investing’s leading champions, Sir Ronald Cohen, believes that
it could be the “revolution” that will save capitalism and solve many of the world’s
greatest problems.

It is an enticing vision of an enlightened post-pandemic economy, and, as an impact

investor and economist, we support its ambitions. However, if we really want to reform
capitalism, then impact investing as it is traditionally conceived will not be enough. The
pandemic is not a mere anomaly; there are profound limits to what business can do
profitably in normal times too. We need to reform the rules that govern how our
economy works — and impact investors have a critical role to play.

Why Impact Investing Is Not Enough

There are certainly examples where impact investment has been successful at
generating both a commercial return and a positive impact. But there are also those
who argue there is a trade-off between profitability and impact. Who is right?

The answer is “both.” An easy way to clarify the issue is by looking at a typical “carbon
cost curve”, which shows the financial costs of investments that would reduce carbon
emissions. Below is an updated cost curve recently produced by the Energy Research
Centre of the Netherlands.

/
/
Each bar represents a different investment. The width of a bar shows how many
gigatonnes per year of greenhouse gas emissions that investment would save, and the
height indicates the cost per tonne saved. For the bars below the zero-cost line on the
far left, costs are negative — i.e. these are investments that are profitable even without
policy change. The bars above the zero-cost line, on the other hand, are investments
that come with net costs and will only become competitive if investors are rewarded for
the carbon they save. They need policies such as subsidies or carbon pricing, and those
on the far right need a very high carbon price indeed.

The leftmost part of the curve shows there are some opportunities where it is already
profitable to cut carbon emissions. Typical examples include household energy
efficiency projects or the best sites for wind power. These represent opportunities for
an impact investor (or a regular investor) to do good while potentially making a
commercial return.

However, to limit global warming to 1.5◦C, as agreed by 196 countries in Paris in 2016,
we must rely mostly on approaches that sit “above the line,” such as expanding wind
energy to some of the unprofitable sites or using carbon capture and storage. To achieve
the Netherlands’ 2050 target of a 95 percent cut in emissions on 1990 levels, all the
investments in the area shaded blue need to be funded. The Energy Research Centre
estimates that, even accounting for future technology change, it would take a carbon
price of nearly €200/tonne to make these profitable.

If that carbon price isn’t in place, then the activities “above the line” remain
unprofitable for private investors, even though they provide a positive return to society
as a whole. Investing in them without a carbon price would mean a lower rate of return

/
than investing in business-as-usual technologies. This is the fundamental trade-off that
impact investors face across issues from pollution, to plastic in the oceans, to female
literacy in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The key insight is this: If there really were no trade-off between profit and impact, then
cost-curves for all these problems would be made up solely of investments “below the
line” all the way along. If this were the case, then we wouldn’t need impact investors.
Regular investors would already be investing in solving climate change, removing
plastic from the oceans, and educating the world’s women.

But there’s another problem. Even many of the “below the line” actions often aren’t
profitable because there are so-called split-incentives, transaction costs, and
opportunity costs — economic jargon for the sort of barriers that block investment or
involve extra costs beyond the price of the technology. These barriers explain why
governments, not markets, have taken the lead with massive schemes to roll out
energy-efficient residential LED lighting, for example.

Impact investors are right that it is sometimes possible to overcome these barriers, and
it is sometimes possible to marry competitive returns and social good by tackling
actions “below the line,” as they have in small energy efficiency or renewables
investments.

But their critics are also right that “sometimes possible” will not be enough to effect
real transformation. In the case of climate change, economists estimate that meeting
the 1.5◦C target will cost around $10 trillion by 2030. In other words, if private
investors were to try to solve climate change alone, they will need to be content with
losing about $1 trillion per year.

Of course, much more than $10 trillion would be saved by solving climate change, but
because the rules of the game don’t reward carbon mitigation, private investors struggle
to capture that value. To make these activities profitable for investors, the IPCC
estimates we’ll need a carbon price between $135 to $5,500 per tonne. Let’s hope it’s on
the lower end.

/
This is the new “inconvenient truth” of the impact investing age: There are simply not
enough below-the-line options to invest in, and much of what we must do will be
unprofitable without a change in the rules. This same truth applies to myriad other
social and environmental problems that we urgently need to solve, from pollution to
poverty to poor public health.

Our governments have wasted nearly three decades ignoring the IPCC and other
experts on climate change. We cannot waste another decade — not even a year —
ignoring these economic realities.

The Rules of the Game

Let’s turn to the rules that govern how our economy works. While the Business
Roundtable urged a shift to stakeholder capitalism, the fact remains that the rules of the
game firmly entrench shareholder capitalism and largely ignore stakeholders. As we’ve
argued before, businesses must seek profits given the less profitable will tend to be
muscled-out by the more profitable over time.

Under today’s rules, some harmful investments offer inflated profits because investors
don’t have to pay for the damage they cause through, for example, carbon emissions or
the health impacts of air pollution. Meanwhile, many worthy investments are
unprofitable because investors are not rewarded for their associated benefits, such as
improvements to health by reducing air pollution.

To bring about Sir Ron Cohen’s revolution, in which investment “does not require
reducing profits in favor of impact,”  our only choice is to change these rules.

We already know what we must do: “Lift the line” with carbon pricing, subsidies or
regulations, so that more actions fall below it and attract investment. Economists have
agreed that this is the way to deal with externalities — whether carbon emissions, ocean
plastic or illiteracy — for more than a century. When investors pay the costs of their
inputs and are rewarded for the value they create, then the gap between investing and
impact investing disappears.

/
In other words, once externalities have been internalized, then all investing becomes
impact investing. A baker can profit from feeding the community, a builder can profit
from housing the community, and a forester can profit from sequestering emissions for
the community. This was Adam Smith’s revelation two and a half centuries ago: when
individual incentives are aligned with what creates economic growth for society as a
whole, the “invisible hand” is free to work its magic.

The Future of Impact Investment

What does this mean for impact investors? We think they have three critical roles to
play.

The first is in making the most of the current rules of the game, by discovering
opportunities that have fallen “below the line” or finding smart ways to overcome
barriers that block below-the-line investment. Tesla’s world first utility-scale battery in
South Australia is a good example of investment at the innovation frontier. It showed
that the technology is ready to be profitable, opening the floodgates for battery projects
across the world. More than ever we need bold innovators to lead the way so that others
may follow.

The second is in encouraging philanthropists to aim higher. Mike McCreless calls this
working at the “efficiency frontier”: when seeking a given impact, always look for the
highest-return way to achieve it. Returns may often fall short of commercial rates, but
when they are as good as they can be given the limits of the rules, each dollar has more
impact. The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC and Roots of Impact
have made similar arguments in developing the Social Impact Incentives (SIINC)
framework. This is impact investing as smarter and more efficient philanthropy.

Finally, perhaps the most important role for impact investors is to lobby for changing
the rules. Impact investors could be a powerful voice urging governments to internalize
externalities and so turn all investment into impact investment. New incentives,
whether a price on carbon or some other mechanism, greatly expand the horizons for
marrying social return with profitability. In doing so, they greatly expand the
opportunities for private sector innovators and smart philanthropists.

/
With a more nuanced view of how impact investing fits into our economic system, we
might have a chance of realizing Sir Ronald Cohen’s revolution: a world where profit
and impact walk hand-in-hand.

Alan Schwartz is a capitalist, philanthropist, social activist, and founder of the Universal Commons Project.
Reuben Finighan is completing his Doctorate at the London School of Economics and is chief economist
at the Universal Commons Project.

This article is about ECONOMICS & SOCIETY

 Follow This Topic
Related Topics: Financial Markets | Sustainability

Comments
Leave a Comment

Post Comment
4 COMMENTS

fred lender 11 days ago

If I read the graph right - why does this article blow right by nuclear - it is below the line - is a WIDE bar,.....
seems to me you make the items below the line WIDER and even more profitable... France seemed to do a
great job running the country on nuclear for I believe several decades - not they have gone above the line.
 Reply 00
 Join The Conversation
/
POSTING GUIDELINES
We hope the conversations that take place on HBR.org will be energetic, constructive, and thought-provoking. To comment, readers
must sign in or register. And to ensure the quality of the discussion, our moderating team will review all comments and may edit them
for clarity, length, and relevance. Comments that are overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic may be deleted per the moderators'
judgment. All postings become the property of Harvard Business Publishing.