Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are Business Ethics Effective? A Market Failures Approach to Impact Investing

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We evaluate the effectiveness of impact investing from the perspective of the market failures approach (MFA) to business ethics. Under the MFA, businesses are ethically obligated to contribute to market efficiency by mitigating market failures. The MFA ethics literature emphasizes a negative externality interpretation of market failures, with ethical practice as self-regulation. We argue that the MFA also obligates businesses, and investors, to produce positive externalities, a form of private provision of public goods. We develop a graphical MFA ethical framework addressed to impact investing. The framework is based on impact projects’ dual financial and social returns. Dual returns trade-offs originate in market failures and increase with positive externalities. In practice, a key determinant of market failure and the size of returns trade-offs is the availability of intermediate public goods. This varies systematically across sectors and country-markets. We identify the market circumstances under which impact investing is feasible. We show how provision of positive externalities mitigates market failures. We show that the effectiveness of impact investing depends on the interaction of the determinants of feasibility and of the size of project trade-offs. We show how government supporting intervention, through blended finance vehicles, can improve impact investing effectiveness. Finally, we show that evidence of actual patterns of impact investing across sectors and countries supports our analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Attridge, S., & Engen, L. (2019). Blended finance in the poorest countries. Technical report Overseas Development Institute, p. 76.

  • Bannick, M., Goldman, P, Kunzansky, M., & Saltuk, Y. (2017). Across the returns continuum. Omidyar Network: Technical report.

  • Bardy, R. (2018). Public goods, sustainable development and business accountability: Connecting corporate performance and preservation of the commons. Journal of Political Sciences & Public Affairs, 6, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica, 77, 305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benn, J., Sangare, C. & Hos, T. (2017). Amounts mobilised from the private sector by official development finance interventions. Working Paper 36. OECD.

  • Besley, T., & Ghatak, M. (2007). Retailing public goods: The economics of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Public Economics, 91(9), 1645–1663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blunden, C. (2021). Between market failures and justice failures: Trade-offs between efficiency and equality in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics.

  • Bolis, M., & West, C. (2017). Marginalized returns. Stanford Social Innovation Review Fall, 2017, 55–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolis, M., Irani, I., Nash, R., Sahan, E, West, C. (2017). Impact investing: Who are we serving? A case of mismatch between supply and demand. Oxfam Discussion Papers. Sumerian Partners.

  • Broccardo, E., Hart, O., & Zingales , L. (2020). Exit vs. voice.

  • BSDC. (2017). Better business better world. Technical report. Business & Sustainable Development Commission, p. 122.

  • Buchanan, J. M. (1968). The demand and supply of public goods (Vol. 5). The Collected Works of James M. Buchanan: Liberty Fund Inc.

  • Carter, P. (2015). Why subsidise the private sector? Overseas Development Institute: Technical report.

  • Chowdhry, B., Davies, S. W., & Waters, B. (2019). Investing for impact. The Review of Financial Studies, 32(3), 864–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornes, R., & Sandler, T. (1984). Easy riders, joint production, and public goods. The Economic Journal, 94, 375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daggers, J. (2019a). Are you sure? Uncertainty in understanding impact, and where we might go next.

  • Daggers, J. (2019b). What do you mean? The unresolved issue of defining what counts as social impact investing.

  • Daggers, J. (2019c). “Solving” social problems with markets and measurement: A critical study of social impact investing. Doctor of Philosophy: Department of Politics, Birkbeck College, University of London.

  • Dewatripont, M, & Tirole, J. (2019). Incentives and ethics: How markets and organizations shape our moral behavior.

  • DFIWG. (2017). Blended concessional finance for private sector projects. Summary Report. DFI Working Group on Blended Concessional Finance for Private Sector Projects.

  • Emerson, J. (2003). The blended value proposition: Integrating social and financial returns. California Management Review, 45(4), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freiburghaus, L., Tinner, F., & Varonier, J., & Wenk, F. (2016). Blended Finance: How blended finance can close the prevailing investment gap and allow social enterprises to grow. University of St. Gallen: Technical Report.

  • GIIN. (2019). Core characteristics of impact investing. Global Impact Investing Network: Brief.

  • GIIN and Intellecap. (2018). The landscape for impact investing in Southeast Asia. Global Impact Investing Network and Intellecap: Technical report.

  • Halland, H., Dixon, A. D., In, S. Y., & Monk, A. H. B. (2018). Governing blended finance: An institutional investor perspective. Working Paper. Stanford University, p. 29.

  • Hart, O., & Zingales, L. (2017). Companies should maximize shareholder welfare not market value. Journal of Law, Finance, and Accounting, 2(2), 247–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, J. (2004). A market failures approach to business ethics. The invisible hand and the common good (pp. 69–89). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-10347-0_5.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, J. (2006). Business ethics without stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(4), 533–557. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200616448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, J. (2013). Market failure or government failure? A response to Jaworski. Business Ethics Journal Review, 1(8), 50–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, J. (2014). Morality, competition, and the firm: The market failures approach to business ethics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199990481.001.0001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, J. (2018). But everyone else is doing it: Competition and business self-regulation. Journal of Social Philosophy, 49(4), 516–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, J. (2019). Is the “Point’’ of the Market Pareto or Kaldor-Hicks efficiency? Business Ethics Journal Review, 7, 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, E. T., & Anja-Nadine, K. (2016). Private capital for sustainable development: Concepts, issues and options for engagement in impact investing and innovative finance. Evaluation Study 2016/2. Danida.

  • Kotchen, M. J. (2006). Green markets and private provision of public goods. Journal of Political Economy, 114(4), 816–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazzarini, S. G., Cabral, S., Pongeluppe, L., de Mesquita Ferreira, L. C., & Rotondaro, A. (2014). The best of both worlds? Impact investors and their role in the financial versus social performance debate. Working Paper 2015-06. University of St. Gallen Law School.

  • Merchant, A. (2019). How development finance institutions engage in blended finance.

  • Mersland, R., Nyarko, S. A., & Sirisena, A. B. (2020). A hybrid approach to international market selection: The case of impact investing organizations. International Business Review, 29(1), 101–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J., & Justin, T. (2019). Corporate provision of public goods. Management Science, 65(10), 4489–4504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moriarty, J. (2020). On the origin, content, and relevance of the market failures approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(1), 113–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudaliar, A., Pineiro, A., Bass, R., & Dithrich, H. (2017). The State of impact measurement and management practice. Global Impact Investing Network: Technical Report.

  • Mudaliar, A., Bass, R., Dithrich, H., & Nova, N. (2019). Annual impact investor survey 2019. Global Impact Investing Network: Technical Report. Ninth Edition.

  • Nilsson, A., & Robinson, D. T. (2018). What is the business of business? Innovation Policy and the Economy, 18, 80–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, W. (2011). Business ethics as self-regulation: Why principles that ground regulations should be used to ground beyond-compliance norms as well. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(S1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1193-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2018a). Blended finance principles for unlocking commercial finance for the sustainable development goals. Technical report: OECD.

  • OECD. (2018b). Making blended finance work for the sustainable development goals. OECD.

  • OECD. (2019). Social impact investment 2019: The impact imperative for sustainable development. OECD.

  • OECD. (2020). Amounts mobilised from the private sector by official development finance interventions in 2017–18: Highlights. Technical report: OECD.

  • OECD and UNCDF. (2019). Blended finance in the least developed countries 2019. Technical report: OECD.

  • Oehmke, M, & Opp, M. M. (2019). A theory of socially responsible investment.

  • Rodrik, D. (2008). One Economics. Many recipes: Globalization, institutions, and economic growth. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • SHCC. (2019). Social & human capital protocol. Social and Human Capital Coalition: Technical report

  • Singer, A. (2018). Justice failure: Efficiency and equality in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(1), 97–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taskforce, Blended Finance. (2018). Better finance better world. Technical report. Blended Finance Taskforce.

  • Taskforce, Blended Finance, BSDC, and Convergence. (2018). Who is the private sector:Key considerations for mobilizing institutional capital through blended finance. Working Paper. Blended Finance Taskforce; Business & Sustainable Development Commission; Convergence.

  • UNECOSOC. (2019). Report of the inter-agency task force on financing for development 2019:Financing for sustainable development report 2019. . United Nations.

  • von Kriegstein, H. (2016). Professionalism, agency, and market failures. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(4), 445–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, A. M. (2013). A framework for efficient government investment. IMF Working Papers, 13(58), 1. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781475579147.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to the editor and two anonymous referees for patiently reading previous versions and making many suggestions for a much improved paper. I am responsible for remaining shortcomings.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Intellexys International, 275 Hornbrook Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850, USA

    Rodney Schmidt

Authors
  1. Rodney Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rodney Schmidt.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schmidt, R. Are Business Ethics Effective? A Market Failures Approach to Impact Investing. J Bus Ethics 184, 505–524 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05133-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05133-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation