An interactive debate between two teams from each corner of the sandbox. Are those with philanthropic and those with commercial capital playing nicely together? How do we resolve the tensions between philanthropic (“impact first”) and commercial (“finance first”) capital – and the very different views between different investors? As more mainstream funds come into this space, who is subsidizing who and who should take the biggest risk? Will we lose the “social impact” in “impact” investing?

One thought on “Debate: Do I Want You in my Sandbox?

  1. Commercial capital and philanthropic capital are worlds apart when it comes to social investing.
    Commercial capital will generally need scale, market or close to market returns.
    Philanthropic capital is money that has already been given away. The alternative to social investment it not getting the money back. We would expect them to value very different things.
    There is clearly a need for philanthropic capital in social investing which is about taking risk. Commercial capital often can’t take high risk for capped returns but they can play a role in certain types of social investment particularly areas where scale is required.

Comments are closed.