Social Impact Investing Beyond the SIB

This chapter introduces social impact investments and the book’s aim, describing the main topics of the volume and its structure.

Impact investments have become one of the most important and most talked about market approaches. Many authors have tried to clarify the boundaries of this emerging investing approach, but several aspects remain unexplored. In particular, to date not many studies have focused on actors and instruments currently available. Moving from these considerations, this chapter aims to: (1) provide a deeper understanding of the impact investing landscape through a systematic literature review, by providing an assessment of the instruments and actors involved; (2) analyze the investors’ preferences by using a pilot survey; and (3) discuss the major trends and challenges that have emerged, both in theory and practice. The exploratory nature of the study was maximized using a qualitative approach. This chapter contributes to the academic debate by providing a preliminary attempt to understand actors and instruments available and the impact investors’ preferences and characteristics.

This chapter provides an empirical insight into factors characterizing social risk of social impact bonds (SIBs) and explores the correlation between social risk and financial return. In order to achieve this research aim, the methodology is organized in three different steps: (1) step one includes the implementation of a scoring model for SIB social risk; (2) step two involves data collection and the measurement of social risk scoring components; and (3) the last step tests for a correlation between social risk and financial returns of SIBs. The sample is composed of 34 SIBs that share information publically. Empirical findings show that most SIBs have a medium score of social risk, while social risk and financial return are not significantly correlated.

In recent decades, governments worldwide have begun to extend the use of Payment by Results (PbR) contracts. PbR contracts create a new type of partnership between investors, governments and service providers that engages them in a new way through complex outcome-based financial arrangements. In Italy, the diffusion of such instruments is limited by market and by legal barriers. Based on these considerations, our work aims to present an overview of the literature on PbR models, with Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) as the main subject, and to perform an explorative analysis of multiple case studies (focusing on innovative SIBs in healthcare) of such schemes.

 The study contributes to the international debate by offering several insights and implications for scholars, practitioners and policy makers. In addition, it aims to help clarify—from a law and economic perspective—the opportunities and obstacles related to the development of PbR instruments in the Italian context.

This chapter documents the first pilot project integrating the social impact investing dimension in a large infrastructure project: the project finance for the upgrande and extension of the public hospital in Treviso (Northern Italy). The case study is a compelling example of ‘Shared Value’ highlighting the potential and limits of the theoretical framework developed by Porter and Kramer (Harvard Business Review, 89(1–2), 62–77, 2011).

This study aims to configure an innovative financial structure for social impact investments. Framing on the Theory of Change, we apply an exploratory analysis to the Meridonare case study, a donation/reward crowdfunding platform led by the Banco di Napoli Foundation and engaging in philanthropy in the social sector. Over the years, the platform has changed the Foundation’s resource allocation procedures through the adoption of an “impact model” evaluation process. Accordingly, for each financing request, Meridonare defines a social evaluation report allowing the Foundation to establish which projects are worthy of additional funds as rewards. However, in its current state, the Meridonare crowdfunding platform lacks the investing perspective, thus we propose an innovative instrument of Social Finance: the Social Bond Crowdfunding based (SBCb), arising from the “pay-for-performance” rewarding mechanism. Therefore, the role of the Foundation shifts from impact facilitator to impact generator.

This chapter reports on an on-going effort in Sweden to create a societal benefit-cost model for evaluation of causal effects of interventions for supporting children and young people at some developmental risk. This work is motivated by needs for such evaluation tools in planning, selection and follow-up of public and private impact investments. So far, modules have been created for economic evaluation of life-course, labour-market-related outcomes, some short- and medium-term cost offsets and the value of mortality and morbidity effects. On-going work includes estimation of the willingness to pay for suicide prevention and the costs of crime. However, as indicated by two case studies that are briefly summarised, even incomplete estimates of the benefit side are sometime sufficient to indicate high societal returns of early intervention and prevention measures.

This chapter reports on the range and extent of monitoring and evaluation practices in the Spanish Third Sector of Social Action (TSAS) and it is conceived as a first step in the study. We assume, for this purpose, the contextualization of the sector: how its economic relevance and financial structure has evolved over the years. This analysis reveals that the funding situation of the sector is in a difficult situation, and needs to develop an accurate methodology that integrates with a common and understandable language; on the one hand, the needs of information that organizations have for their learning and management and, on the other hand, the accountability of the results demanded by stakeholders. The analysis of the different methods of measurement of social impact will allow us to draw some conclusions and set future goals.

This chapter focuses on research and policy agenda for impact investments. Research and policy recommendations can be formulated for any kind of financial architecture, however, some pillars regard many financial products as well as geographical areas and political contexts. Thus, this chapter assesses points still open, like the need for: a soft and hard regulation; a transparent governance; reliable social and financial performance; and the market development.