Systematic review reveals five interdependent impact risk dimensions in impact investing, highlighting dynamic mechanisms of risk amplification and conversion.
This study systematically reviews impact risk in impact investing to identify its dimensions, drivers, governance responses, and interrelationships. Drawing on a qualitative thematic analysis of 56 articles published between 2011 and 2025, the review integrates previously fragmented research on impact‐related risks. We define impact risk as risks arising from the pursuit, governance, measurement, and public claims about impact that threaten the realization, credibility, or social license of impact‐oriented investments. The findings identify five interrelated dimensions: positive impact risk, negative impact risk, impact evidence risk, impact accountability risk, and impact legitimacy risk. For each dimension, the review synthesizes its principal drivers and governance responses. The findings further show that these risks form an interdependent system characterized by risk amplification, risk conversion, and risk mutual reinforcement. The study contributes a five‐dimensional classification of impact risk and an integrative framework explaining how these risks interact, providing a foundation for examining impact risk as an interdependent governance problem.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Islam et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: