It was a few days before Christmas 2015, and George Taylor could not believe what he was reading. Shane Simpson, a 16-year-old in Wilmington, North Carolina, had been killed in a gang-related drive-by shooting. Taylor didn’t even know his city had gangs, and he was so shocked and saddened by the killing that he vowed to do what countless others have attempted with limited or no success: End gang violence in his community.
Taylor, a man in his mid-50s, is an experienced entrepreneur and used that perspective to create a startup called TRU Colors, a brewery that employs gang members and is slated to open publicly in the first quarter of 2019. While most other employment-related responses to gang violence require people to leave gangs as a condition of employment, TRU Colors wants its team to stay active in their gangs in order to harness the dynamics of gang influence as a powerful driver of solutions to gang violence — and so far, it has been met with welcome cooperation. At the time this article went to print (December 2018), TRU Colors had not yet opened its doors and yet gang violence in Wilmington was already down by 90 percent.
Results like this demonstrate the world-changing potential of impact investing, but unfortunately, results like this are rare. For all of the attention and capital flowing into the space, examples of real, concrete impact are surprisingly hard to find. The problem is that the norms of impact investing lead us to focus on the wrong things.
The Global Impact Investing Network defines impact investing as “investments made with the intention to generate a measurable, beneficial social or environmental impact alongside a financial return.” While the intention to make such an impact is clear, a widespread lack of sophistication in the measurement of impact is hampering progress.
What seems to suffice for most impact investing efforts is the measurement of output rather than impact: the number of people served, the number of dollars invested, the number of hours volunteered, etc. But does all that effort create real impact? We can’t say, and that is unacceptable. It is not impact investing if there is no impact.
Consider the example of a Michigan credit union that was debating how to increase the economic vibrancy of the communities it served. Some on the board proposed launching an aggressive financial education program, which would demonstrate impact in the number of programs established and the number of people who attended them. The ensuing debate raised this question: If dozens of programs were built and were heavily attended, but there was no change in economic vibrancy, would the credit union have achieved real impact? The board finally agreed that the only true measure for impact, and therefore the final measure for the effectiveness of any financial education programs or other efforts, would have to be an actual increase in economic vitality.
As champions of the impact investment movement, it is impact investors’ responsibility to ensure that the time and resources we are able to attract and deploy are demonstrably creating a measurable, beneficial impact? That is the only way we will win over our critics and reach the tipping point of redefining business-as-usual. To do that, we have to ask three hard questions to ensure the success of impact investments. Answering these questions well is the key to achieving real and lasting impact — and we can see these answers play out in TRU Colors’ story.
1. What problem are you trying to solve?
At issue in most cases is a lack of specificity about the problem that must be solved. Many efforts to do good through impact investing focus on helping to alleviate the symptoms of a problem rather than solving the problem itself. The classic example of this is TOMS shoes. The story goes that the founder of TOMS was traveling in the developing world and observed that many children did not have shoes and suffered a number of heartbreaking consequences that seemed very simple to avoid. The solution? Create a shoe company with a pricing model sufficient to send a pair of shoes to those kids for free every time someone of relative means made a purchase. To date, TOMS has donated 86 million pairs of shoes and inspired a mini-industry of other one-for-one companies.
Noble though these efforts are, even TOMS acknowledges that the one-for-one model helps kids in need but does not solve the underlying problems. To its credit, TOMS shoes has continually evolved its model and has a much more sophisticated approach today. However, most people still only know about the one-for-one model and use that as a shining example of positive impact — even though it is not.
By itself, this approach may have the huge unintended consequence of stunting the local economies that otherwise might have developed their own solutions to these problems, in effect perpetuating the root causes of the problem even as they seek to help alleviate the symptoms. In this way, donating 86 million pairs of shoes would be a mere vanity metric absent the other important work TOMS is doing to address root causes. This is the danger of seeking to “do good” instead of focusing on a specific problem to solve.
By contrast, because TRU Colors was created to solve a specific problem (the presence of gang violence in Wilmington, North Carolina), the one and only measure of its success is the number of incidents of gang violence in Wilmington, North Carolina. The number of jobs created and classes attended and the capital deployed and awareness raised are all nice, but they are meaningless if they fail to substantially reduce gang violence. Yet in impact investing we frequently cite those proxy results to justify further investment. This failure to keep our eye on the ball of the real impact we seek results in “mission creep” — a gradual shift in objectives during the course of a campaign, often resulting in an unplanned long-term commitment — and what we fear is a tremendous amount of wasted time and money.