Create a comprehensive, profoundly insightful summary of the journal article below: "THESOCIALSCIENCES.COM
VOLUME 11 ISSUE 3
The International Journal of
Interdisciplinary
Global Studies
________________________________________________________________________
New Frontiers of Development
Social Finance, the Latent Power of the Private Sector
AYA ONO
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
INTERDISCIPLINARY GLOBAL STUDIES
www.thesocialsciences.com
ISSN: 2324-755X (Print)
ISSN: 2324-7568 (Online)
doi:10.18848/2324-755X/CGP (Journal)
First published by Common Ground Publishing in 2016
University of Illinois Research Park
2001 South First Street, Suite 202
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
Ph: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PHONE_NUMBER>
www.commongroundpublishing.com/
The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Global Studies
is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal.
COPYRIGHT
© 2016 (individual papers), the author(s)
© 2016 (selection and editorial matter), Common Ground Publishing
All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study,
research, criticism, or review, as permitted under the applicable
copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any
process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions
and other inquiries, please contact
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>.
Common Ground Publishing is a member of Crossref.
EDITOR
Gerassimos Kouzelis, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
MANAGING EDITOR
Dominique Moore, Common Ground Publishing, USA
ADVISORY BOARD
Patrick Baert, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK
Andreja Bubic, University of Split, Split, Croatia
Norma Burgess, Syracuse University, Syracuse, USA
Hillel Goelman, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Peter Harvey, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia
Vangelis Intzidis, University of Aegean, Rhodes, Greece
Paul James, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Ivana Batarelo James, University of Split, Split, Croatia
Gerassimos Kouzelis, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
Alexandros-Andreas Kyrtsis, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
Massimo Leone, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
Jose Luis Ortega Martin, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain
Francisco Fernandez Palomares, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain
Constantine D. Skordoulis, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
Sanja Stanic, University of Split, Split, Croatia
ASSOCIATE EDITORS
Articles published in The International Journal of Interdisciplinary
Global Studies are peer reviewed by scholars who are active
participants of the Interdisciplinary Social Sciences Knowledge
Community or a thematically related Knowledge Community.
Reviewers are acknowledged as Associate Editors in the corresponding
volume of the journal. For a full list, of past and current Associate
Editors please visit
www.thesocialsciences.com/journals/editors.
ARTICLE SUBMISSION
The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Global Studies
publishes quarterly (March, June, September, December).
To find out more about the submission process, please visit
www.thesocialsciences.com/journals/call-for-papers.
ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING
For a full list of databases in which this journal is indexed, please visit
www.thesocialsciences.com/journals/collection.
KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITY MEMBERSHIP
Authors in The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Global
Studies are members the Interdisciplinary Social Sciences Knowledge
Community or a thematically related Knowledge Community.
Members receive access to journal content. To find out more, visit
www.thesocialsciences.com/about/become-a-member.
SUBSCRIPTIONS
The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Global Studies
is available in electronic and print formats. Subscribe to gain access to
content from the current year and the entire backlist.
Contact us at <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>.
ORDERING
Single articles and issues are available from the journal bookstore at
www.ijigst.cgpublisher.com.
HYBRID OPEN ACCESS
The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Global Studies
is Hybrid Open Access, meaning authors can choose to make their
articles open access. This allows their work to reach an even wider
audience, broadening the dissemination of their research. To find out
more, please visit
www.thesocialsciences.com/journals/hybrid-open-access.
DISCLAIMER
The authors, editors, and publisher will not accept any legal
responsibility for any errors or omissions that may have been made in
this publication. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein.
The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Global Studies
Volume 11, Issue 3, 2016, www.thesocialsciences.com
© Common Ground Publishing, Aya Ono, All Rights Reserved
Permissions: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ISSN: 2324-755X (Print), ISSN: 2324-7568 (Online)
New Frontiers of Development: Social Finance, the
Latent Power of the Private Sector
Aya Ono, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia
Abstract: This paper frames social finance in its broadest terms as an alternative to traditional corporate responsible
practice, highlighting the significance and potential of social finance in mobilising financial resources for global social
development. This paper explains social finance as an approach employing financial resources drawn from “the market”
to generate positive social impacts which can, depending on instruments, also deliver financial returns. Despite hitherto
forms of capitalism generating economic asymmetry, there is an urgent need for a more equitable financial mobilisation
through innovative finance. Such a need has generated a paradigm shift in the corporate sector where actors in the
private sector are increasingly using a variety of instruments to utilise private money for public good—social finance. We
have so far seen corporate responsible business practices, yet with innovation and multi-sectoral partnerships, it can
potentially bring the most significant change that has yet to be witnessed globally.
Keywords: Social Finance, Social Impact Investment, Creative Capitalism
Introduction
lobally, businesses and investments are increasingly turning “social.” The slogan
“private money for public good” has been widely used for many actors in not only the
social sector but also in the private sector—demonstrating a gradual shift in the
corporate approach to capital utilisation. Various scholars claim the innate nature of capitalism
for perpetuating economic asymmetry (Piketty 2014; Giddens 2002; Robinson 2004), and this
creates a structural gap between “developing” and “developed” countries, or so-called the North
and South divide, a socio-economic and political divide (Rafael and Thompson 2007).
Globalisation, a set of complex processes of international integration through multidimensional
avenues such as international trade, is often deemed a powerful force that divides society into
classes according to the level of financial capital. The role of capital in development is a defining
issue in debates about the nature of capitalism and its alternatives. Marx and Engels (1848, 83)
argue that the capitalist social and economic system involves “constant revolutionising of
production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, [and] everlasting uncertainty and
agitation.” This explains the systemic dependency on the continuous accumulation and
circulation of capital. Within a capitalist system therefore, the search for a productive
accommodation between funding entities and those subjects of development—“the poor” as
viewed conventionally by international development agencies—continues.
Under the global capitalist system, countries would neither be maintained nor grow without
capital and markets to help allocate resources (Stiglitz 2006). The six pillars of capitalism—
private property, competition, market mechanism, freedom of choice, limited role of government,
and self-interest—are critical resources to sustain life in a capitalist system (Jahan and Mahmud
2015). The British economist John Keynes (1936), in his book General Theory of Employment,
Interest, and Money, argues that capitalism does not need a replacement for a market-based
economy, but requires periodic government intervention to offset inequality. As much as the
“private” nature of capitalism, the public domain also rarely sets the markets truly free due to
state legal and tax restrictions (Gregory 2015). However, Piketty (2014) in his book Capital in
the Twenty-first Century, which analysed key economic and social patterns from the eighteenth
century, also proves that capitalism has a tendency to build concentrated financial wealth.
Despite the growth of affluence over the past two centuries, the radical and dynamic feature of
G
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY GLOBAL STUDIES
capitalism is the pursuit of individual self-interest, which drives the search for the highest yields
through lowering costs, perpetuating economic asymmetry or, in Piketty and Keynes’ words,
inequality.
Such “failures” of capitalism are being addressed with the rise of a new approach called
social finance. Nicholls, Paton, and Emerson (2015, 3) in their introduction chapter to Social
Finance define social finance as the “allocation of capital primarily for social and environmental
impacts, as well as in some cases, a financial return.” Social finance can also be seen as an
approach to employ financial resources—drawn from “the market”—to generate positive social
impacts, which can also deliver a financial return. Social finance can be used to include
approaches to solve societal challenges (Nicholls, Paton, and Emerson 2014). Shin (2012),
describes social finance as finance provided through the use of social networks and personal
relationship. Social finance is considerably distinct from hitherto corporate practices such as
Corporate Social Responsibility because of its ability to yield both social and financial dividends.
Defining social finance is a field of inquiry with an extensive and growing literature
requiring empirical studies, however, this article will focus on the conceptual terrain of social
finance. It surveys the state of the debate on corporate responsible practices and locates social
finance, in all its various forms, within a broad field of development strategies and marketoriented practices.
Literature Review
Global forces such as multinational corporations (MNCs) maximise profits and cut the cost of
production to maximise returns on capital and investment. Among the plethora of debates around
capitalism, Jahan and Mahmud (2015) and Litan, Baumol, and Schramm (2008) add four new
types of capitalism for consideration according to the role of entrepreneurship in driving
innovation and the institutional setting. These include state-guided capitalism, oligarchic
capitalism, big-firm capitalism, and entrepreneurial capitalism. State-guided capitalism enables
the government to identify a particular sector to grow—which can in turn result in excessive
investment or susceptibility to corruption. In oligarchic capitalism, a specific fraction of the
population is protected or enriched which generates significant inequality and corruption. Bigfirm capitalism, as the name suggests, is oriented towards enlarging the scale of economic
growth through mass production of products, and entrepreneurial capitalism is about
breakthroughs and innovations, producing the automobile, computers, or mobile phones which to
a certain extent must rely on mass-production for business sustainability (Litan, Baumol, and
Schramm 2008). Muller (2013) suggests that contemporary capitalist polities must accept that
market operations continue to generate and increase far-reaching inequality at the individual,
local and international levels. Hence, the thinking that has developed around the private sector –
more broadly capitalist enterprise –has spawned new developments around Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR).
The term CSR was first coined by Harvard Professors Adolph Berle and Gardiner C. Means
in the 1930s (Klempner 2006). This concept emerged in the 1950s as there was a new focus on
business responsibility to society and doing environmental good. Peter Drucker in his 1954 book
The Practice of Management included public responsibility as one of the key business objectives
for management (Moura‐Leite and Padgett 2011, Drucker 1954). Subsequently, it shifted from
environmental conservation where major MNCs, such as the Royal Dutch Shell Group,
responded to calls to reduce their environmental footprint, to governance, ethics, and sustainable
social development through partnerships with civil society actors (Herzig and Moon 2013).
Currently, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD 2014b, 3) defines
CSR broadly as the “continuing commitment by business to contribute to economic development
while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the
community and society at large.” CSR can be perceived as a corporate commitment to ethical
conduct with a greater focus on environmental and social good (Sklair and Miller 2010). The
2
ONO: NEW FRONTIERS OF DEVELOPMENT
current state of CSR is a reflection of the influence of various CSR conceptualisations both in
academic theory and corporate practices at all institutional, organisational, and individual levels
(Lindgreen and Swaen 2010; Pinkston and Carroll 1996; Aguinis and Glavas 2012).
CSR has also been used to actively source funds for overseas development projects, and its
substantial scale should be unveiled. Oxfam (cited in Hopkins 2012) and the OECD (2013)
confirm that the volume of the private capital flow exceeds that of Official Development
Assistance (ODA) and the entire UN system. As Hopkins (2012) states, Wal-Mart’s $10.5 billion
in pre-tax profit for 2005 was comparable to the World Bank’s annual loan budget of around
US$15 to 20 billion per year. Warren Buffet, the wealthiest investor in history, provided 85
percent of his wealth, around $31 billion, to six global foundations in 2006 (Desai and Kharas
2010). The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has $40 billion in capital (Addis, McLeod, and
Raine 2013). Given the enormous financial strength veiled in the global capital market, the
private sector has the potential capacity to partner with other sectors to contribute to global
sustainable development.
As the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD 2014a) recognises,
CSR means “very different things to different people, depending on a range of local factors,
including culture, religion, and governmental or legal conditions.” 1 This implies that the
company directors and managers must define, weigh, and judge the interests of the various
stakeholders, which can obscure the purpose and operation of the CSR activities. This issue has
led scholars such as Jamali and Sidani (2011) to contest that CSR can be counterproductive in
many cases where it fails to be transparent, inclusive, accountable, sustainable, and rooted in
local needs and priorities; and where local managers are not consulted about the scope or nature
of CSR activities and are often compelled to pay to meet CSR requirements.
CSR invites a myriad of criticisms because of theoretical and practical flaws in its nature.
Milton Friedman was among the first to spark debate about CSR in the 1970s when he argued
that maximising profits is the only responsibility of business. Friedman (1970) further debunks
the disparate purpose of CSR, because CSR for MNCs can be termed as “hypocritical window
dressing” (Friedman 1970, para. 27). Under capitalism, capital orients towards a greater return,
based on lower production costs and at the expense of exploited developing countries, which in
turn can create wealth that can be distributed according to the movements of the market.
Friedman (1970) equated CSR, if it worked for purely altruistic purposes, with socialism.
Friedman (1970) implies that socialism is fundamentally counterproductive to a country’s
development in terms of the economy and society where expansion of economic growth and
improvement in health could not be expected if CSR continued its socialistic performance. From
this point of view, CSR involves reducing profit for social ends, thereby taking over the function
of government, as this is in effect imposing a tax in the form of foregone profits, and determining
how the proceeds of investment and production will be allocated.
Many echo Friedman’s sentiments and argue that it is unreasonable for a business to invest
in social programs because this represents an opportunity cost in a free-enterprise system (Roper,
May, and Cheney 2007, Sternberg 2009, 1999). Roper, May, and Cheney (2007, 3) assert that
CSR is “wrong-headed: a violation of the principles of free enterprise and a confusion of roles of
the private, governmental, and non-profit sectors.” From a capitalist “fundamentalist” point of
view, CSR is viewed as an inhibitor of free market growth. This is because socialism cannot
provide a free global market which, Friedman (1970) believes, attributes to an expanded global
1 Historically, CSR has been termed synonymously with the triple bottom line (TBL)—a commitment by engaged
businesses to support the three pillars of sustainability—the environment, society, and economy. The TBL, coined by
Elkington (2004), is the CSR reporting criteria and mechanism in the private sector. TBL reporting defines social,
economic, and environmental sustainability outcomes achieved by companies to enhance ethical economic development,
improve the quality of life of the workforce, their families, and the community, and to reduce environmental damage
caused by their operations. More recently, the concept of ESG—environmental, social, and corporate governance—is
gaining favour over TBL, as is consistent with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and plays an influential role in
incorporating the notion of sustainability through CSR (Mazullo 2013; UN Global Compact 2016).
3
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY GLOBAL STUDIES
market, more MNCs, globally extensive economic growth, and better nutrition, and consequently
improvement in health and longevity. CSR, through the avenue of MNCs, therefore can be
considered as a contributing factor to overall national development, ignoring the cost that
developing countries are forced to pay through “cheap labour” exploitation.
In addition, CSR has been criticised for its immoral motivation and complacency. According
to various scholars, CSR is driven primarily by corporate promotion with the intention of
improved financial performance. Firstly, CSR is used as a “public relations strategy for
complacency and control” (Roper, May, and Cheney 2007, 3). In fact, several scholars have
observed and verified better financial performance for companies conducting CSR activities
(Waddock and Graves 1997, Lin, Yang, and Liou 2009). MNCs exercise CSR as an opportunity
to seek profit and their own expansion of business operation, which will improve the return on
investment of the financiers of the organisations, irrespective of their countries of origin
(McWilliams, Siegel, and Wright 2006; Arnold and Valentin 2013; Grayson and Hodges 2004;
Bertels and Peloza 2008; Fombrun and Shanley 1990). Zairi and Peters (2002, 174) add that CSR
is seen as a key driver for engaging the wider community as an “important stakeholder in
business activity,” which confirms the view that CSR activities are merely a part of a business
operations and are not intended to bring significant social and environmental impacts. This is
supported by Sklair and Miller (2010) who propose that CSR is a strategy for MNCs to survive
under the established system of capitalist globalization. Secondly, as CSR relies heavily on selfregulation and enforcement, its implementation tends to be ad hoc and therefore not effective,
and it can be prone to corruption such as bribing government officials (Werna, Keivani, and
Murphy 2009; Battersby 2014). Generally, corporate actors within this system conduct CSR in
order to promote a positive image of their company with the ultimate objective of increasing
sales, and therefore the wealth of company owners or shareholders (Werna, Keivani, and Murphy
2009; Jamali and Sidani 2011; Brine, Brown, and Hackett 2007; Wulfson 2001; McKibben
2006). MNCs maximize profits not only by their business operation but through CSR—
establishing social justice and values which are an essential subject of consumer’s utility.
Since the late 1990s, however, the notion and practices of CSR began to offer the resurgence
of optimism. Some companies implementing CSR gradually started to address and overcome the
concerns raised above. Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins (2000) in their book, Natural Capitalism
foreshadowed a new type of industrial revolution. Following on from the ideas encapsulated in
the Brundtland Report (World Conference on Environment and Development 1987), Hawken,
Lovins, and Lovins (2000, 316) advocated for a move towards capitalism that conserved the
natural resource base that supported all economic activities, as they coined the phrase “Nature
bats last and owns the stadium.” In the same year in 2000, the UN Global Compact (UNGC) was
formed to promote the environmental and social engagement of businesses and the concept of
“natural capitalism.” This was endorsed by the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable
Development (Rio+20) under the Natural Capital Declaration. Following this endorsement, the
CEOs of more than forty global financial institutions such as the International Finance
Corporation announced their commitment to integrating natural capital considerations into
private sector reporting, accounting, and decision-making (Natural Capital Declaration, UNEP
Finance Initiative, and Global Canopy Programme 2013). Despite the criticism that UNGC’s
program allowed for self-regulation (Kuecker 2014; Sethi 2014; Bruno and Karliner 2000), its
establishment was an important step towards providing a platform for “innovation and collective
action” for sustainable development (The Global Compact Network Nederland 2015, 2). This
suggests that the negative claims of CSR being a hypocritical capitalist strategy to only increase
profits through reputational gain—could be replaced with a more positive image that promoted
innovation, creativity, and collective ability to work for successful business outcomes for society
(Hargroves and Smith 2005).
There is a rich source of scholarly literature on the subject of innovation and creativity that
addresses inequality generated under the global capitalist system. As Nowakowski (2013) and
Florida (2002, 2012) suggest, new ideas render existing social norms obsolete, and the growing
4
ONO: NEW FRONTIERS OF DEVELOPMENT
role of creativity must be supported. Moreover, the increasing interdependence of CSR and social
innovation must be emphasized (Crets and Celer 2013), given the need for long-term corporate
value creation and strategies to address complex contemporary societal issues. Social innovation
refers to innovative activities and services that are motivated by, and developed for, the goal of
meeting a social need, often practiced by organisations or individuals whose primary focus is
social good (Mulgan et al. 2006; Yunus 2006). To harness social innovation, one of the future
work skills required in an increasingly globalised world is novel and adaptive thinking (Anna,
Fidler, and Gorbis 2011). Bill Gates (2008) and Young (2015) both support this view by
declaring the emerging concept of creative capitalism as an inventive global system that involves
diverse, multi-sectoral collaboration between governments, businesses, and Non-Government
Organisations (NGOs) and civil organizations to effectively spread the economic benefits of
capitalism both developed and developing countries. CSR needs to be re-defined to create shared
values where companies sell new ethical products, find new customers, attract talented people,
and create a winning reputation (Kell 2014; Porter and Kramer 2011). More progressive
businesses are looking to drive innovation through the adoption of “sustainable” solutions
because conventional capitalism, as Norman (1999) presaged, is no longer efficient in nature.
We are witnessing a redefinition of capitalism and a reframing of the practices of capitalist
organizations. There is a propensity among MNCs to use buzzwords such as “responsible,”
“sustainable,” “fair,” and “moral” when referring to their business operations, presenting a direct
rhetorical and ideological challenge to Marxism and its variants. One could argue that liberal
capitalist theory and rhetoric is returning to its roots in the ideas of Adam Smith. While Litan,
Baumol, and Schramm (2008) argue that capitalism is self-interest driven, in 2003, Young (2003,
75) proposed a new concept called “moral capitalism” which is an inclusive system built around
“responsible governments and ethical businesses.” This, according to Young (2003, 5), is “selfinterest considered upon the whole,” where business decisions are made based on the perceived
broader needs of society and where self-interest is synonymous with the common good. Moral
capitalism asks for all—rich and poor—to contribute to improving social conditions for the most
disadvantaged and thereby reduce the gap between rich and poor.
The second new capitalism concept, public interest capitalism, can be equated to moral
capitalism. This concept, proposed by George Hara (2009), emphasises the importance of
creating values not only for shareholders but also for all stakeholders—employees, customers,
vendors, and the local community. This is built on traditional Japanese corporate management
practices, one of which is known as “Sanpo Yoshi,” a principle held by old Japanese merchants
in the 1700s. Sanpo Yoshi translates as “good for the seller, the buyer, and society as a whole.”
Merchants practice this principle by ensuring buyer’s satisfaction through their quality products,
and with profits gained, they contribute to the local community by building social infrastructure
such as the bridge and school, which benefits the community as a whole (Tanimoto 2013). Public
interest capitalism is rooted in the concept of providing value to a company’s entire array of
stakeholders to ensure the company’s sustainability, long-term success, and greater social good.
This concept relies on three indicators: fairness, sustainability, and ongoing improvement—
“Kaizen” (Japanese for “continuous improvement”), which consequently feeds moral capitalism.
Finally, philanthrocapitalism, a term coined in 2008, is another concept that redefines the
current state of capitalism. In this concept, capitalism is re-oriented towards maximising profit
for the purpose of creating further social and environmental impact (Bishop and Green 2008,
2015). Leading philanthropic organisations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation apply profit-making business strategies to philanthropic activities
such as improving global health and poverty alleviation (McGoey 2013). In this model, profitmaking strategies—socially oriented businesses—are used to create social benefit, which
highlights the conceptual significance beyond CSR. Profit-oriented companies in a freeenterprise system with what Friedman (1970, para 14) termed “window-dressing” practices are
5
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY GLOBAL STUDIES
undeniably part of a whole social environment which should remain responsible for serving the
society in which they exist.
Globally, there is a thirst for drivers of innovation to achieve sustainable social development.
Businesses and investors are increasingly using their financial capital to contribute to the social
sector. As might be expected, there are tensions between the foreshadowed privatization of
corporate financing and the ideals, or concerns, of many in the global social sector. Not least is
the deeply held suspicion of who benefits from transnational capital amongst those who advocate
for greater state responsibility and action. According to Gregory (2015), however, there could be
an alternative to the traditional mechanism of capitalism, which must inevitably start from the
resource-rich private sector. The International Finance Corporation has made a timely
endorsement of the private sector in its report “The Private Sector Matters for Development,” in
which it argues that the private sector is an “indispensable force” for sustainable global
development (International Finance Corporation 2015, 28).
Establishing an innovative mechanism for greater global partnership with multiple sectors
and individuals is the key to sustainable development. The 2015 United Nations Sustainable
Development Summit adopted seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with 169
targets to be implemented globally from 2015 to 2030. These goals build on the United Nations
Millennium Development Goals which were adopted by the UN members in 2000 to provide a
guide for global development. Out of the seventeen SDGs, Goal 17 is solely dedicated to
financing development to promote effective multi-sectoral partnership from public and private
sectors, as well as civil society. Goal 17 emphasises a global multi-sectoral partnership for
mobilising additional financial resources from “multiple sources,” and to “adopt and implement
investment promotion regimes” (UN 2015, 22). SDG 17 is one symbolic way of accentuating the
need for engagement and partnership with the private sector to model innovative ways of
procuring capital for development practice.
The concept of innovative finance already warrants the interest from government and intergovernmental sectors globally. Innovative financing is supported by a growing number of groups
including the UN-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), established in 2006, by
an independent group of global investors with more than 1,000 signatories focusing on
environmental, social, and governance responsibilities with regard to investment analysis and
decision-making, transparency, and industry mobilisation (Addis, McLeod, and Raine 2013). The
Department of Economic and Social Affairs in the UN (2012) defines innovative finance as
entailing a broad range of financial mechanisms. The scope and scale of innovative finance is
contested as there is currently no standardised definition of “innovative finance.” Sandor, Scott,
and Benn (2009), researchers at the OECD, claim that innovative finance can be one type that
brings public-private partnership. The World Bank deems innovative finance as any financing
approach that “helps to generate funds by tapping into new sources or by engaging new partners,
including those that enhance the ‘efficiency’ and ‘measurability’ of financial flows by reducing
delivery time and/or costs, and make financial flows more ‘results-oriented’” (World Bank 2010,
1). According to Desai and Kharas (2010), these new financing mechanisms are no longer simply
partnerships with CSR, yet they are the mechanism that powerfully reflects on independent voice
and strategy, through the use of capital market finance. Clearly, global institutions, businesses,
and individuals are now venturing into an innovative financing approach to address complex
global issues.
We are entering a new era where innovative multi-sectoral financing approaches are redefining capitalism. As many scholars have foreseen, socially-oriented financing approaches are
changing the nature of the global financial system and facilitating innovative and multi-sectoral
collaborations with greater emphasis on social impact (Rook 2012; Shin 2012; Haigh 2012b; Ito
2013; Leung, Bouri, and Saltuk 2011; Saltuk and Idrissi 2014; Bugg-Levine and Emerson 2011).
This article proposes that the social finance approach is an innovative financing mechanism that
can help finance global sustainable development. The following sections highlight the broader
6
ONO: NEW FRONTIERS OF DEVELOPMENT
spectrum of social finance and identify social finance approaches that have emerged in recent
years in order to frame the ways in which social finance operates globally.
Background
Social Finance as an Innovative Finance Model
Social finance is an innovative financing alternative to traditional corporate social practices.
Social finance is considerably distinct from previous corporate practices such as CSR because of
its ability to yield both social and financial benefits. It involves the employment of financial
resources drawn from “the market” to address the “social” aspects of institutional failures—for
example, lack of public service as a public failure and inequitable financial distribution as a
market failure (Ito 2016). Social finance has the potential to address broader social objectives by
providing much needed cash and credit to communities and organisations. Social finance can
encapsulate the category of responsible finance, green finance, values-based finance, ethical
finance, and sustainable finance. Four major social finance approaches are social
entrepreneurship, venture philanthropy, socially responsible investment, and social impact
investment,2 which includes crowdfunding, social impact bonds (SIB), and development impact
bonds (DIB) currently practiced to achieve certain social objectives of disadvantaged
communities (Haigh 2012a; Hebb 2012; Nicholls, Paton, and Emerson 2015; Waygood 2011).
An innovation in these services is the for-profit approach being used to achieve both social and
financial dividends, demonstrating the rise of philanthrocapitalism.
The current volume3 of global responsible investments by governments and multi-lateral
organisations reflects the level of interest in the market-oriented, multi-sectoral partnership
approach to responding to global sustainable development. The total amount, which includes all
types of socially- and environmentally-oriented investments at the macro level, is roughly US$60
trillion—just below the world’s total GDP of $77 trillion (Principles for Responsible Investment
2015; World Bank 2015). Socially Responsible Investment assets conducting negative screening
of unethical industry such as tobacco or alcohol are estimated to reach a total of $14.4 trillion4
(Global Sustainable Investment Alliance 2015). Considering the World Bank’s annual loan
budget is roughly US$15 to 20 billion per year (Hopkins 2012), the financial scale of social
finance is incomparably substantial. Development specialists recognise that money is essential
for people to meet their personal development needs, and even though the amounts required are
not large, they can have a positive impact provided that funds are used effectively (Sen 1999).
Based on the significant position of social finance in the world today, there needs to be a clear,
shared understanding across sectors to have a common goal in employing this approach. Figure 1
illustrates a spectrum of finance activities by multiple players, divided into three broad
classifications from financial return prioritised, social impact prioritised, and social impact only.
Ito (2013) highlights the three major social financial vehicles: venture philanthropy, socially
responsible investment (SRI), and social impact investment (SII). These concepts are explored
below.

2 “Investment” in this paper refers to any flow of working capital injected into individual, group, organizational, or
sectoral action and which generates a return appropriate to the initial outlay with consideration of risk.
3 As of July 2016
4 As of February 2015
7
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY GLOBAL STUDIES
Figure 1: Spectrum of social finance
Source: Ito 2013.
Venture Philanthropy
Venture philanthropy resembles venture capital. It works to empower and strengthen social
purpose organisations by contributing long-term financial and hands-on support to create greater
societal impact (European Venture Philanthropy Association 2015). In this approach, the venture
philanthropists provide support and guidance to build organisational capacity for operational
performance and measuring outcomes, as well as tailored capital investment for three- to six-year
business plans, emphasising accountability-for-results, and ensuring a managing partner
relationship (Grant 2012; Gordon 2014). Venture philanthropy, a concept introduced in 1997 by
Harvard academics Letts, Ryan, and Grossman (1997), incorporates philanthropy and venture
capital investment practices. Venture capital is defined as equity investment of pooled funds in
ventures with high growth potential over a medium- to long-term period, and venture
philanthropy adopts venture capital practices such as due diligence, risk management,
performance measurement, relationship management, and an exit strategy, which will be
complemented by the venture philanthropist who commonly has a business management
background (Grossman, Appleby, and Reimers 2013; Gordon 2014).
In 2002, the first UK-based venture philanthropy organisation, Impetus Trust, was founded,
and in 2004, European Venture Philanthropy Association was established as a hub and network
for all European actors operating in venture philanthropy and social investment. Similarly, the
Asian Venture Philanthropy Network (2015) was launched in 2011 and currently has over 200
members from twenty-eight countries spanning diverse sectors—government, social, private, and
academic. It provides networking and learning services to meet the needs of its members such as
webinars, conferences, and a knowledge centre on its website. The development of these
organisations demonstrates the growing demand for information sharing to develop the ecosystem in this field. Gordon (2014) observes that neoliberalist ideologies dominant in developed
countries have contributed to the emergence of a platform for socially innovative products and
services to counter the socio economic inequalities created by the hitherto capitalist system.
Venture philanthropy, therefore, focuses more on achieving a social return over a financial return
through high engagement, tailored financing, multi-year support, and capacity building
(Cummings and Hehenberger 2011).
8
ONO: NEW FRONTIERS OF DEVELOPMENT
Socially Responsible Investment
Socially responsible investment (SRI) supports ethical investment and carries out ‘negative
screening’, avoiding industries such as tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and military weapons
(Sullivan 2010; Openshaw 2015; Hebb 2012, 2013). SRI may use the Environment, Society, and
Governance (ESG) criteria for evaluating corporate responsibility before investing in particular
industries. As mentioned earlier, according to the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance (2014),
SRI assets as of 2014 are estimated to total $14.4 trillion. The growth in popularity of the ESG
concepts appears to have contributed to the maturation of SRI (Crifo and Forget 2013). SRI is, in
fact, a continuation of faith-based negative screening which started in the 1920s (Kawaguchi
2014). This screening ranges from pork and alcoholic products for Muslim, the meat industry for
Buddhists, and the sale of armaments for Christians (Domini 2001). This model evolved in the
1960s and 1970s to universally filter out alcohol, tobacco, gaming, and weaponry industries for
ethical reasons (Domini 2001). As part of SRI practices, divesting is also frequently practiced to
boycott and pressure certain groups—governments, industries, or companies—on ethical grounds
to change their policies (Openshaw 2015). A notable example is the global movement in 1986
which saw pension funds globally withdraw around $200 billion in investments from companies
that supported apartheid in South Africa (Openshaw 2015, Kawaguchi 2014). As is evident, the
core feature of SRI is to minimise environmental and social harm.
SRI is now a focal point of academic debates across multiple fields, from finance to social
welfare, due to its scale of market capital. US SIF (2014) reports that there were nearly $7 trillion
in SRI assets in the United States in 2014, which is a 76 percent increase from 2012. Similarly,
the responsible investment industry in Australia continues to grow, and further solidify its
position of the market. As of 2015, the total core responsible investment excluding the broad
integration of ESG, accounted for 3.8 percent of the total assets under management in
Australia—AUD$51.5 billion—an increase of 62 percent in one year (Responsible Investment
Association Australasia 2016). The evidence indicates that SRI is gaining traction with a wider
spectrum of interested investors.
Social Impact Investment (SII)
Finally, the most significant vehicle for social finance is social impact investment. In the post
global financial crisis world, an inquiry into the SII model serves a timely contribution to the
review of existing financial and economic mechanisms, as Mulgan (2009, 1) and Nicholls (2010)
emphasise that SII can be a driver towards a “new capitalism.” Social impact investing is defined
as an investment that “intentionally targets specific social objectives along with a financial return
and measures the achievement of both” (Social Impact Investment Taskforce 2014). While
venture philanthropy and SRI seek to focus largely on societal impact, or minimising negative
impacts, impact investing aims to use finance markets to generate both social and financial gains
(Geobey, Westley, and Weber 2012; Big Society Capital 2015; Kawaguchi 2014; Hebb 2013).
SII delivers both social and economic returns throughout the spectrum of grants, debt capital,
equity capital, mezzanine capital, and hybrid capital—all of which will be selected by investors’
preference (Oleksiak, Nicholls, and Emerson 2015). This means that SII can include existing
grants and loans for social purposes such as global microfinance funds, however it is
distinguished on the basis that it is intentionally designed to generate both social and financial
revenues (Addis, McLeod, and Raine 2013). 5 It can offer a middle way opportunity to

5 A notable example is Root Capital, an impact investment fund that invests in rural prosperity in Latin America and
Africa. It provides financial training, strengthening market connections, and short-term trade credit and pre-harvest loans,
or long-term fixed asset loans to farmer associations and private businesses. These financial services will support rural
farmers’ agricultural activities as well as mitigate the lender’s risk. Since 1999, Root Capital has mobilised more than
US$900 million in credit to support over 600 businesses in these continents (Root Capital 2016).
9
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY GLOBAL STUDIES
complement philanthropic capital and market-driven solutions to reach those who cannot be
served by markets of developed economies (Rodin and Brandenburg 2014; Ito 2013). SIIs are at
the core of a broad “impact continuum” that runs from philanthropy to responsible and
sustainable investment, and includes all practices that seek to achieve a positive social impact
(Social Impact Investment Taskforce 2014, 1). Its premium financial capacity is also evident—
estimated SII assets under management worldwide6 exceed $60 billion, and are forecasted to
grow between $400 billion and $1 trillion in the coming decade (Global Impact Investing
Network 2015; Huppe 2014).
One of the innovative SII instruments is crowdfunding. It is commonly considered to be a
more accessible, transparent, and simpler way to raise funds for particular social or
environmental causes or activities and to participate in the investment landscape. Crowdfunding
is one of the by-products of the 2008–2009 global financial crisis when the financial sector
globally exhausted traditional sources of credit (Barnett 2015). This was also the beginning of
what is known as FinTech—innovative financial services made possible with the combination of
finance and technology to disrupt traditional financial systems, a prime example of which, is
crowdfunding. According to the Crowdfunding Industry Report which studied 1,250 active
crowdfunding platforms worldwide (Massolution 2015), the crowdfunding sector experienced
tremendous growth in its market from $880 million in 2010 to $16 billion in 2014, and to over
$34 billion in 2015. Crowdfunding is an accessible way to contribute to a particular cause
showcased in online crowdfunding platforms that use popular and infectious social media
platforms. Examples of crowdfunding platforms include Kiva (US), DoSomeGood (Australia),
and Indiegogo (US). Currently over one-third of the world’s population has access to the internet
and 85 percent have access to a mobile phone, and it is estimated that in three years’ time, nearly
half of the people living in Africa will have access to a smartphone (World Bank and Information
for Development Program 2013). With an estimated $4 trillion worth of revenue pooled in the
FinTech industry (Goldman Sachs, 2015), its financial capacity to mobilise resources may
“disrupt” existing financial firms and banks, and consequently reshape the current financial
system. Rodin and Brandenburg (2014, 8) claim that solving the increasingly dynamic, complex
challenges of our time requires such an innovative funding approach that can “complement
philanthropy and strategically leverage larger and more commercial sources of funding.” Despite
information asymmetries and legal limitations (Lehner 2015), crowdfunding is radically
changing the nature of financial services, promoting accessibility to ensure more financial
inclusion and mobilisation.
Other innovative SII instruments are social impact bonds (SIB) and development impact
bonds (DIB). In its current SIB form, referred to as “pay for success,” pays a return to investors
based on the performance of social service providers, and could inspire other similar investment
“products” to be generated (Center for Social Impact 2011; Addis 2015). As explained in Figure
2 below, the SIB model provides a mechanism that involves holistic multi-sectoral partnerships
between government, private, and social sectors which includes social welfare organisations and
the disadvantaged (UK Parliament 2011). Investors fund social welfare programs based on early
intervention, prevention or the building of financial sustainability (Jones 2012; Centre for Social
Impact 2011). The SIB model transfers the risk of funding social prevention services to the
private investors and is considered to promote accountability for taxpayers’ money because
governments give financial returns to investors only relative to performance levels of achieved
outcomes set by governments, which are evaluated by independent auditors. The SIB operational
framework significantly generates an unprecedented sustainable cash flow cycle between
investors, financial sectors, social service providers, and governments. Theoretically, the SIB
model benefits all stakeholders through continuous improvements in social programs based on
agreed performance indicators, more significant impact for the targeted beneficiaries, satisfactory
returns for investors, and a reduction in government social welfare budgets.

6 As of 2015
10
ONO: NEW FRONTIERS OF DEVELOPMENT
One of the good examples of the SIB model is the one conducted in Australia which proved
to generate both social and financial returns. Australia has been one of the leading countries in
the SIB initiatives—the third country after US and UK that launched SIB. In Australia, SIB is
called Social benefit bond (SBB). The first SBB project was launched in July 2013, and involves
the New South Wales (NSW) state government to provide an upfront standing charge of
AUD$5.75 million for the Uniting Care Burnside NGO’s Newpin (New Parenting and Infant
Network) program. This project aims to improve family relationships and return children who are
at-risk of or currently out of home care (OOHC) to their families (See Figure 2 below). As an
intermediary organisation, not-for-profit Social Ventures Australia (SVA) facilitates the overall
SBB process by seeking investment for funding, linking investors with the NSW Government for
“outcome payment returns,” providing direct grants to Uniting Care Burnside as a service
provider, and engaging Ernest and Young as an independent auditor to evaluate the outcome of
the Newpin program. Once agreed milestones (such as number of children returned home) have
been achieved by the service provider, the NSW Government releases the return from the
“outcome fund.” Since this was a pilot program, the NSW government reduced investor risk by
subsidising some of the initial investment (Social Ventures Australia 2013).
Figure 2: Structure of Social Impact Bonds
Source: Developed by author.
Around 2013 in NSW there were approximately 18,000 children in OOHC and an estimated
61,000 “at-risk” children (Social Ventures Australia 2015). Not only does being in OOHC
traumatise children, disrupt their schooling, and increase their likelihood of becoming involved
in criminal activity, but Social Ventures Australia (2015) highlights that it costs the NSW
Government an estimated AUD$37,000 per year per child to have children in OOHC. This
equates to AUD$666 million per year for all 18,000 children in care. With the support of Premier
Mike Baird in NSW, the Newpin program aims to not only encourage family restoration but to
also significantly reduce the welfare budget.
The 2014 Social Ventures Australia (2014) noted there were significant achievements in the
first year—136 families with 228 children participated in the Newpin program, ten families with
“at risk” children were supported to prevent these children from entering OOHC, and twentyeight children were restored to their families. The first interest payment as a result was 7.5
percent, based on a fifteen month payment period (Social Ventures Australia 2014; Eyers 2014).
11
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY GLOBAL STUDIES
In the second year, the 2015 annual investor report published by Social Ventures Australia
(2015) showed continued significant levels of growth, highlighting additional 113 families
participating and forty-two children (up from 28 children in 2011) had been restored to their
families. The cumulative restoration rate reached 61.6 percent, boosting the second interest
payment to 8.9 percent (Social Ventures Australia 2015). On the negative side, eight children
were returned to OOHC and sixteen children left the Newpin program before family restoration,
compared with twenty-six in 2014 (Social Ventures Australia 2015). Nevertheless, in 2014
investors in the Newpin program earned around AUD$655,890 in interest and this grew to
AUD$748,897 in 2015, an increase of AUD$86,400 (Social Ventures Australia 2014, 2015). The
success factor was the Newpin therapeutic program which originated in the UK and was created
in response to the needs of mothers experiencing family problems who were consequently
supported through weekly therapeutic parental group meetings (Newpin Australia 2013).
Remarkable track records of financial returns continue to encourage potential investors to invest
in social impact investment such as SBB in Australia.
Similarly, DIBs that built on the form of SIBs have been created to address international
development objectives. DIBs transform development problems into “investible” opportunities,
encouraging investors to bring their resources and skills to the field of international development
(Nicholls and Emerson 2015, Center for Global Development and Social Finance 2013, Ono
2015). DIBs can be seen as a new business model for international development programs that
promote innovation and flexibility to achieve better results and in particular to support the
services offered by business development services providers in developing countries. There are
two DIB projects in progress—one in India to improve children’s education outcomes, and
another in Uganda to combat sleeping sickness. Other countries and development agencies are
also considering adopting innovative ways of financing international development programs
using private equity, DIBs, and more recently Humanitarian Impact Bond in discussion (Asian
Venture Philanthropy Network 2016). In fact, according to Nicholls and Emerson (2015), there
are key financial and political initiatives observed from governments of France, Canada,
Germany, UK, and Italy to further finance international development activities—led mainly by
development finance institutions and private equity. Hinton and Penemetsa (2015) note various
challenges around the need for obtaining capital, clarifying the role of development financial
institutions, a proven track record in the DIB model, financial innovation, greater risk-taking, a
blended view of return, and locally based emerging-market institutions to invest in private equity,
all of which must be developed over time with greater collaboration between various actors in
this field.
Businesses with Social Missions
For-purpose enterprises alike, a “social enterprise” plays an important role as a direct driver for
creating social impact, funded by social finance instruments. Social entrepreneurship is an
innovative market-oriented approach that is an emerging field of academic inquiry, yet there is
no standardised definition for it. According to Boschee and McClurg (2003), “social
entrepreneurship” is the most misunderstood phrase in the non-profit sector. Nicholls and Cho
(2006) define social entrepreneurs as those with a clear social mission (sociality), effective and
efficient use of resources (market orientation), and pioneering inter-activity in changing contexts
(innovation). In 2014 the US Social Enterprise Alliance (2014) defined social enterprise as “any
earned-income business or strategy undertaken by a non-profit distributing organisation to
generate revenue in support of its charitable mission. Earned income consists of payments
received in direct exchange for a product, service, or a privilege.” In a 2009 OECD report on
social innovation, Antonella (2009) explained social enterprise as an innovative business model
that meets both social and economic objectives, which are, in Emerson and Twersky’s (1996, 12)
words, the “double bottom line.” Murray and Underwood (2012, 9) claimed that social enterprise
in all forms is revolutionising business to create new opportunities for “sustainable
12
ONO: NEW FRONTIERS OF DEVELOPMENT
entrepreneurship and securing futures.” Such “disruptive innovation” (Christensen and Bower
1995) can create new markets by discovering new customers and product categories and
harnessing technologies and new business models (Christensen 1997). Innovations can replace
earlier types of technology—such as MP3 replacing CDs, and AirBnB replacing Bed and
Breakfast accommodation, or Uber replacing taxi business—affect the way existing businesses
operate.
Despite popular consensus around definitions of the term ‘social entrepreneurship’ as
discussed above, several scholars and institutions (SSE 2009, para 4, Unite for Sight 2009,
Wilhelm 2009, para 4) question these definitions that have been coined with the pre-eminence of
the “Anglo-Saxon” mindset, and its predominant presence in conferences and academic
literature, and academic recognition of MBAs. One of these is Schwartz (2009, para 2) who
states that social entrepreneurship events and conferences are generally held in “Anglo-Saxon”
countries, and speakers are generally from these countries. This, as Schwartz (2009, para 3) calls
an example of “Anglo-Saxon imperialism”, excludes participation by, and representation of,
people living in countries in Africa, and people without finance experience and/or MBAs. The
lack of academic qualifications can, to an “Anglo-Saxon” investor’s eyes, represent the lack of
entrepreneurial talent that limits innovative, diverse ideas of social entrepreneurship (Wilhelm
2009, para 4). Gomez (cited in Unite for Sight 2009, para. 2) asserts that “the true social
entrepreneurs are ghosts that never claim the glory for themselves…because…their lives do
depend on it…You don’t find them in congresses, seminars and forums…They live for it and by
it.” Akinyemi et al. (2013) add that social entrepreneurs in developing countries have assets—
farmers have land and knowledge, and tradesmen have tools and skills, but they stay
unrecognised due to geographic locations, the need for qualifications, and the lack of access to
technological marketing networks. For many, social entrepreneurship is a “vocation of necessity”
(Unite for Sight 2009, para. 3).
While it is important to ensure inclusivity in the field for social entrepreneurship,
misconceptions must be avoided. The Grameen Bank (2014, para. 1), established by Professor
Muhammed Yunus defines microentrepreneurs as “people who own small-scale businesses
known as microenterprises. They usually employ less than five people…They can provide or
supplement the source of income.” The EU’s definition of microenterprise is a commercial
venture with fewer than ten employees, and with an annual turnover below EUR€2 million
(Commission of the EU Communities 2003). Munoz (2010) in his book Contemporary
Microfinance asserts that microenterprises add value to a country’s economy by creating
opportunities for jobs, income, and stronger purchasing power, and adding further business
avenues. Battersby (2014, 792) notes this as a form of “grass-roots liberalism to foster liberal
values at ‘the bottom of pyramid.’” The International Labour Organisation (ILO 2014, 54) refers
to them as “own-account workers” who are self-employed entrepreneurs. Abu-Saifan (2012, 26–
7) offers a holistic definition of social entrepreneurs who explains that social entrepreneurs
operate within the boundaries of two business strategies that are
1) non-profit with earned income strategies: where a social enterprise perform hybrid
social and commercial activities to achieve “self-sufficiency,” or
2) for-profit with mission-driven strategies: where a financially independent socialpurpose business perform social and commercial activities simultaneously to achieve
“sustainability.”
In addition to the benefits that social entrepreneurship brings, more importantly, the world
must build “intellectual infrastructure” ready for “social business thinkers” (Yunus and Weber
2010, 154). Many social entrepreneurs are still in need of financial support despite general
consensus and belief for sustainable operation of social enterprises (Osberg 2006; Antonella
2009; Lehner 2015). Social entrepreneurs themselves must also be ready for it – The CEO of
School of Social Entrepreneurship (SSE) Australia has embedded into their curriculum the
13
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY GLOBAL STUDIES
technical side of funding such as crowdfunding campaigns (Powell 2013). Intellectual
infrastructure adds depth, detail and insight into the fast growing concept of social enterprises,
yet to further build this, not only scholarly and practical inquiry but also external funding
mechanism are needed. While developing countries witness the accelerated growth of small and
medium enterprises (SMEs) that are socially-oriented, impact-focused investors, funds often find
it uneconomical to support and manage investments in SMEs, due to the relatively smaller
transaction size and narrowly defined types of enterprises (Center for Global Development and
Social Finance 2013; Shaffer 2014). Furthermore, although Bugg-Levine and Emerson (2011,
62) describe impact investing and social enterprises as “two sides of the Velcro,” Ashoka’s
Director in Germany, Felix Oldenburg (cited in Belachew 2012, para. 9) explains that the social
entrepreneurs are “forced to be schizophrenic to cater to the divergent demands of donors and
investors.” Generally social entrepreneurs are required to work with foundations and investors to
ensure commercial viability, which can promote a holistic and inclusive approach through
negotiations and creative collaborations with a diverse range of stakeholders (Florida 2002).
Infrastructure and Continued Challenges of Social Finance
The potential of social finance instruments for global social development is sufficient to warrant
serious attention from the Group of Eight (G8), comprising the US, UK, France, Canada, Italy,
Germany, Japan, EU, and in addition, Australia, which joined the G8 Social Impact Investment
Task Force, as well as the formation of national advisory boards in these countries. The UK and
the US have comparatively progressive and matured SII markets. The UK, for example
established the world’s first taskforce dedicated to social investment—the Social Investment
Taskforce—established in 2000. This taskforce aimed to carry out transformative steps to create
wealth, economic growth, employment, and an improved development in its poorest
communities (Social Investment Task Force 2000). The initial task force proposed five
community and socially-oriented actions to achieve its objectives. These included the
establishment of a Community Investment Tax Credit, Community Development Venture Funds,
disclosure of individual bank lending activities, greater latitude, and encouragement for
charitable trusts and foundations, and support for Community Development Financial Institutions
(Social Investment Task Force 2000). Led by Sir Ronald Cohen, this taskforce operated for ten
years until 2010 when it concluded with a final review of achievements and suggested areas for
further policy development to catalyse the market for social investment. The G8 Social Impact
Investment Task Force is built on by the initial Social Investment Taskforce, which provided a
leadership model for the global taskforce. The G8 Social Impact Investment Taskforce
transformed into the Global Social Impact Investment Steering Group in July, 2015 to welcome
and acknowledge initiatives developed by emerging countries such as Portugal, Brazil, India,
Mexico, and Israel. This Global Steering Group will continue to navigate expertise in policy for
impact investment operations and the development of impact the investment market globally
(Impact Investing Australia 2015). Clearly, SDG 17 is vindicated by these examples of marketoriented development and multi-sectoral partnerships.
Conversely, Bugg-Levine and Emerson (2011) and Huppe (2014) note that the challenge that
social impact investment faces, as is often the case with financially oriented investment, is the
shortage of risk-avert investment deals, inadequate investment track records, and limited exit
options due to the nature of socially-oriented missions. According to research on sustainability
and financial investment conducted by Wiek and Weber (2014), the integration of sustainability
issues into financial decision-making is mainly driven by risk management concerns. Yet, Saltuk
and Idrissi (2014) identified that these barriers will persist without national and sub-national
government efforts. Holistic collaboration is the key in addressing the challenge. Wiek and
Weber (2014) go beyond this to identify the role of the financial sector in addressing the complex
problem of sustainability. It is important for financial intermediaries to develop intervention
strategies in order to mitigate identified challenges.
14
ONO: NEW FRONTIERS OF DEVELOPMENT
Another dilemma lies in the vehicle of social and development impact bonds. SIBs are
theoretically the most holistic, collaborative approach in social finance due to its format
involving public, private, and non-profits. Wall Street and investors are eyeing this emerging
market for its potential to enhance their public image, its reasonable returns on capital, and its
social impact (Tookel 2013). Despite this, private foundations and endowments remain a critical
part of the investor landscape. Capital provided by foundations is typically able to fund the most
innovative interventions; while other capital sources may be better suited to investing in SIBs or
DIBs that focus on measurability. While the first SIB investors in the UK were predominantly
philanthropic foundations, the SIB investment market has started to attract a broader range of
capital (Social Finance UK 2014). For example, Goldman Sachs in the US acted as an investor
and the Bank of America Merrill Lynch acted as private placement agent for SIBs while in
Australia, investment has occurred though private ancillary funds and in the UK, through social
investment funds. As the market matures, we would expect to see more interest from institutional
investors for whom the lack of scale and track record, and a need for capital at risk protection,
has so far limited their ability and willingness to invest.
The second challenge for the SIB model is coherent inclusiveness. Each actor in the SIB
program, as Social Finance UK (2014) anticipated, does not always agree on exactly what
innovation they are championing; some focus on innovation in financing techniques, others on
innovation in social services. Opinions vary about whether the market should use SIBs solely to
finance expansion of proven programs or to experiment with new interventions. Abott (1988)
warns that professionalization of social action can historically be facilitated by intellectual and
organisational domination in the space. Nicholls (2010) also presaged that based on the fact that
the drive towards professionalization of social investment is dominated by board members with a
mainstream finance background from major UK social investment institutions, those of
mainstream markets and investment management will have more “say” in institutionalising social
investment. Similarly, entrepreneurs who do not “speak the language” are typically challenged
when communicating with traditional investors and intermediaries due to cultural barriers
(Bauer-Leeb and Lundqvist 2014 cited in Lehner 2015). While the interest of the national
governments that joined the Global Social Impact Investment Steering Committee reflects rich
promises of this space, the question of whose voice counts—prioritisation of development—
remains a challenge.
Conclusion
This article frames social finance in its broadest terms as an alternative to traditional corporate
responsible practice, highlighting the significance and potential of social finance to mobilise
financial resources for global social development. It presents a conceptual understanding of what
social finance can include in order to foster further research in this field. Social finance is an
approach employing financial resources drawn from “the market” to generate positive social
impacts which can, depending on the instruments, also deliver financial returns. Social finance
has spawned a broad range of categories including responsible finance, green finance, valuesbased finance, ethical finance, and sustainable finance as well as services such as microfinance,
social entrepreneurship, ethical banking, venture philanthropy, socially responsible investment,
and social impact investment (online crowd-funding, SIBs, and DIBs). The key innovative
characteristic of these new forms of financing is their ability to generate both social and financial
dividends as we witness the shift from profit-oriented business operations to more sociallyoriented, impact-focused operation.
Despite hitherto forms of capitalism generating economic asymmetry, there is an urgent need
for a more equitable financial mobilisation through innovative finance. Such a need has
generated a paradigm shift in the corporate sector where actors in the private sector are
increasingly using a variety of instruments to utilise private money for public good—social
15
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY GLOBAL STUDIES
finance. Social finance is still-evolving and rudimentary in the scholarly community, limiting
rigorous literature review and an understanding of its institutional framework. The scale and
potential capacity of social finance reflect an imperative to investigate and model the drivers of
social finance instruments and facilitate resource mobilisation for sustainable global social
development. We have so far seen corporate socially responsible practices, yet with innovation
and multi-sectoral partnerships, social finance can potentially bring the most significant change
that has yet to be witnessed globally.
Acknowledgement
I thank my supervisors and mentors, Associate Professor Paul Battersby, Dr. Reina Ichii,
Associate Professor Jose Roberto Guevara, and Dr. Caroline Norma from Royal Melbourne
Institute of Technology who provided insight and expertise that continue to assist the research. I
also thank Jen Anderson, Ken Mason, and Wendy Miller for comments that greatly improved the
manuscript.
REFERENCES
Abott, A. 1988. The System of Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Addis, R, J McLeod, and A Raine. 2013. "IMPACT Australia: Investment for social and
economic benefit." Australian Government Department of Education, Employment, and
Workplace Relations Accessed June 15.
https://docs.employment.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/impactaustralia_nov_2013_2.pdf.
Addis, Rosemary. 2015. “The Roles of Government and Policy in Social Finance.” In Social
Finance, edited by Alex Nicholls, Rob Paton, and Jed Emerson, 383–459. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Aguinis, Herman, and Ante Glavas. 2012. “What We Know and Don’t Know About Corporate
Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda.” Journal of Management 38
(4):932–68. doi:10.1177/0149206311436079.
Akinyemi, Julius O, John Dilyard, Dennis Anderson, and Katja Schroeder. 2013. "Innovation and
Technology for Social Enterprises." United Nations Accessed July 17.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/egms/docs/2013/ict/innovation-technology-socialenterprises.
Anna, Davies, Devin Fidler, and Marina Gorbis. 2011. Future Work Skills 2020. University of
Phoenix Research Institute: Institute for the Future.
Antonella, Noya. 2009. "The Changing Boundaries of Social Enterprises." OECD Accessed July
15.
http://www.oecd.org/employment/leed/thechangingboundariesofsocialenterprises.htm.
Arnold, Denis G., and Andres Valentin. 2013. “Corporate Social Responsibility at the Base of the
Pyramid.” Journal of Business Research 66 (10): 1904–14.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.012.
Asian Venture Philanthropy Network. 2015. “About Us.” Accessed October 2.
http://avpn.asia/about-us/.
———. 2016. “Building Humanitarian Impact Bonds in Developing Countries.” Accessed
March 15. https://avpn.asia/2016/02/29/building-humanitarian-impact-bonds-indeveloping-countries/.
16
ONO: NEW FRONTIERS OF DEVELOPMENT
Barnett, Chance. 2015. “FinTech Investments Quadruple: Top Trends to Watch.” Accessed
October 7. Forbes.com. http://www.forbes.com/sites/chancebarnett/2015/07/22/ fintechinvestments-quadruple-top-trends-to-watch/.
Battersby, Paul. 2014. “The Local and the Global Responsibilities of Business.” In The SAGE
Handbook of Globalization, edited by Paul Battersby, Joseph M. Siracusa, and Manfred
B. Steger, 787–95. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Bertels, Stephanie, and John Peloza. 2008. “Running Just to Stand Still? Managing CSR
Reputation in an Era of Ratcheting Expectations.” Corporate Reputation Review 11 (1):
56–72. doi:10.1057/crr.2008.1.
Big Society Capital. 2015. “Open Funds.” Accessed September 17.
http://www.bigsocietycapital.com/open-funds.
Bishop, Matthew, and Michael Green. 2008. Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich can Save the
World. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Bishop, Matthew, and Michael Green. 2015. “Philanthrocapitalism Comes of Age.” In Social
Finance, edited by Alex Nicholls, 113–29. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boschee, Jerr, and Jim McClurg. 2003. "Towards a Better Understanding of Social
Entrepreneurship: Some Important Distinctions." Social Enterprise Alliance Accessed
September 20. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/courses/fileDL.php?fID
=7289.
Brine, Matthew, Rebecca Brown, and Greg Hackett. 2007. "Corporate social responsibility and
financial performance in the Australian context." Accessed October 2.
http://archive.treasury.gov.au/documents/1268/PDF/04_CSR.pdf.
Bruno, Kenny, and Joshua Karliner. 2000. "Tangled Up in Blue: Corporate Partnerships at the
United Nations." Transnational Resource and Action Centre Accessed July 17.
www.corpwatch.org/downloads/tangled.pdf.
Bugg-Levine, Antony, and Jed Emerson. 2011. Impact Investing: Transforming How We Make
Money While Making a Difference. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Center for Global Development, and Social Finance. 2013. "Investing in Social Outcomes:
Development Impact Bonds." Center for Global Development & Social Finance
Accessed September 20. http://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/investing-in-socialoutcomes-development-impact-bonds.pdf.
Center for Social Impact. 2011. “Report on the NSW Government Social Impact Bond Pilot.”
Accessed September 9. http://www.csi.edu.au/news/NSW_is_ready_to_pilot_social_
impact_bonds084.aspx.
Christensen, Clayton. 1997. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great
Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, Clayton, and Joseph L. Bower. 1995. “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the
Wave.” Harvard Business Review, January/February.
Commission of the EU Communities. 2003. "Commission Recommendation concerning the
definition of micro, small and medium sized enterprises." Official Journal of the
European Union 46 (124): 36–41.
Crets, Stefan, and James Celer. 2013. “The Interdependence of CSR and Social Innovation.” In
Social Innovation: Solutions for a Sustainable Future, edited by Thomas Osburg and
Rene Schmidpeter, 77–87. Heidelberg: Springer.
Crifo, Patricia, and Vanina D. Forget. 2013. “Think Global, Invest Responsible: Why the Private
Equity Industry Goes Green.” Journal of Business Ethics 116 (1): 21–48.
doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1443-y.
Cummings, A. M, and L. Hehenberger. 2011. “A Guide to Venture Philanthropy For Venture
Capital and Private Equity Investors.” Accessed October 2. http://evpa.eu.com/.
17
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY GLOBAL STUDIES
Desai, Raj, and Homi Kharas. 2010. “Democratizing Foreign Aid: Online Philanthropy and
International Development Assistance.” New York University Journal of International
Law and Politics 42 (2):1111–42.
Domini, Amy. 2001. Socially Responsible Investing: Making a Difference and Making Money.
Illinois: Kaplan Professional Company.
Drucker, Peter. 1954. The Practice of Management. New York: Collins.
Elkington, John. 2004. “Enter the Triple Bottom Line.” In The Triple Bottom Line, Does It Add
Up? Assessing the Sustainability of Business and CSR, edited by Adrian Henriques and
Julie Richardson. London: Earth Scan.
Emerson, Jed, and Fay Twersky. 1996. The Success, Challenge and Lessons of Non-Profit
Enterprise Creation. San Francisco: The Roberts Foundation Homeless Economic Fund.
European Venture Philanthropy Association. 2015. “What is Venture Philanthropy?”
http://evpa.eu.com/about-us/what-is-vp/.
Eyers, James. 2014. “NSW Social Impact Bond Returns 7.5 per cent.” Sydney Morning Herald,
August 31, 2014. http://www.smh.com.au/business/nsw-social-impact-bond-returns-75-
per-cent-20140831-10ajsa.html.
Florida, Richard. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. Basic Books: New York.
———. 2012. The Rise of the Creative Class Revisited. Philadelphia: Basic Books.
Fombrun, C. J, and M. Shanley. 1990. “What’s in a Name? Reputation Building and Corporate
Strategy.” Academy of Management Journal 33 (2): 233–58.
Friedman, 1970. “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.” The New York
Times Magazine, September 13.
Gates, Bill. 2008. "World Economic Forum - Creative Capiatlism." Accessed September 29.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/media-center/speeches/2008/01/bill-gates-2008-worldeconomic-forum.
Geobey, Sean, Frances R. Westley, and Olaf Weber. 2012. “Enabling Social Innovation through
Developmental Social Finance.” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 3 (2):151–65.
Global Impact Investing Network. 2015. “What is the Market Potential of Impact Investing?”
Accessed September 17. http://www.thegiin.org/impact-investing/need-to-know/#s8.
Global Sustainable Investment Alliance. 2015. "Global Sustainable Investment Review."
Accessed June 30. http://www.gsi-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/GSIA_
Review_download.pdf.
Gordon, Jillian. 2014. “A Stage Model of Venture Philanthropy.” Venture Capital 16 (2): 85–
107. doi:10.1080/13691066.2014.897014.
Grant, Peter. 2012. The Business: The Theory and Practice of Philanthropy, Grantmaking and
Social Investment. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Grayson, David, and Adrian Hodges. 2004. “Forget Responsibility, Think Opportunities.”
Accessed June 25. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2004/jul/04/
ethicalbusiness.ethicalmoney.
Gregory, Dan. 2015. “Postscript: Is There a Co-operative Alternative to Capitalism?” In Social
Finance, edited by Alex Nicholls, 616–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grossman, Allen, Sarah Appleby, and Caitlin Reimers. 2013. "Venture Philanthropy: Its
Evolution and Its Future." Harvard Business School Accessed October 2. http://impetuspef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Venture-Philanthropy-Its-Evolution-and-ItsFuture.pdf.
Haigh, Matthew. 2012a. “Financialization in an Era of Globalization.” Journal of Sustainable
Finance & Investment 2 (1): 83–4. doi:10.1080/20430795.2012.711974.
———. 2012b. “Publishing and Defining Sustainable Finance and Investment.” Journal of
Sustainable Finance & Investment 2 (2): 88–94.
Hara, George. 2009. “Enriching Lives of People in Developing Countries through Public Interest
Capitalism.” Economy, Culture & History Japan Spotlight 28 (6): 22.
18
ONO: NEW FRONTIERS OF DEVELOPMENT
Hargroves, Karlson, and Michael H Smith. 2005. The Natural Advantage of Nations: Business
Opportunities, Innovation and Governance in the 21st Century. London: Earthscan.
Hawken, Paul, Amory B. Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins. 2000. Natural Capitalism: The Next
Industrial Revolution. London: Earthscan Publications.
Hebb, Tessa. 2012. "The Next Generation of Responsible Investing." In The Next Generation of
Responsible Investing, edited by Tessa Hebb, 1–8. Dordrecht: Springer.
———. 2013. “Impact Investing and Responsible Investing: What Does it Mean?” Journal of
Sustainable Finance & Investment 3 (2): 71–4. doi:10.1080/20430795.2013.776255.
Herzig, Christian, and Jeremy Moon. 2013. “Discourses on Corporate Social Ir/responsibility in
the Financial Sector.” Journal of Business Research 66 (10): 1870–80.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.008.
Hinton, Peter, and Sweta Penemetsa. 2015. “Investing for Social Impact.” In Social Finance,
edited by Alex Nicholls, 543–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hopkins, Michael. 2012. Corporate Social Responsibility and International Development: Is
Business the Solution? London: Earth Scan.
Huppe, Gabriel A. 2014. “Building Impact Investment Readiness.” Accessed August 17.
http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/building_impact_investment_readiness?utm_sourc
e=Enews&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=SSIR_Now&utm_content=Title.
ILO. 2014. Global Employemt Trends: Risk of a Jobless Recovery. Geneva: International Labour
Organisation.
Impact Investing Australia. 2015. “Global Social Impact Investment Steering Group.” Accessed
September 17. http://impactinvestingaustralia.com/our-work/g8-taskforce-on-impactinvesting/.
International Finance Corporation. 2015. “The Private Sector Matters for Development.”
Accessed October 21. http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/CORP_EXT_Content/
IFC_External_Corporate_Site/Annual+Report.
Ito, Ken. 2013. “Direction of Social Finance for Social Business.” Accessed January 5.
http://www.bop.go.jp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/130521_seminar06_Asian-VenturePhilanthropy-Network.pdf.
———. 2016. “Asian Successfully Scaled Social Enterprise Case and Its Implication for
Systemic Change.” http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getDocument.aspx?DOCNUM=
40135714.
Jahan, Sarwat, and Ahmed Saber Mahmud. 2015. “What is Capitalism?: Free Markets may not
be Perfect but They are Probably the Best way to Organise an Economy.” Finance and
Development 52 (2): 44–5.
Jamali, Dima, and Yusuf Sidani. 2011. “Is CSR Counterproductive in Developing Countries: The
Unheard Voices of Change.” Journal of Change Management 11 (1): 69–71.
Kawaguchi, Mariko. 2014. "Environment, Society, and Governance Report." Daiwa Institute of
Research Accessed August 29. http://www.dir.co.jp/research/report/esg/esg-report/
20140602_008572.html.
Kell, Georg. 2014. “Five Trends that Show Corporate Responsibility is Here to Stay.” The
Guardian, August 13. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/fivetrends- corporate-social-responsbility-global-movement?CMP=new_1194.Klempner,
Geoffrey. 2006. "Philosophy of CSR." Philosophy for Business Accessed June 20.
http://www.isfp.co.uk/businesspathways/issue27.html.
Kuecker, Glen David. 2014. “A Global Compact?” In The SAGE Handbook of Globalisation,
edited by Paul Battersby, Joseph M. Siracusa, and Manfred B. Steger, 827–41. London:
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Lehner, Othmar M. 2015. “Crowdfunding in Social Finance.” In Social Finance, edited by Alex
Nicholls, Rob Paton, and Jed Emerson, 521-42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY GLOBAL STUDIES
Letts, Christine W., William P. Ryan, and Allen S. Grossman. 1997. “Virtuous Capital: What
Foundations Can Learn from Venture Capitalists.” Harvard Business Review 75 (2): 36–
44.
Leung, Giselle, Amit Bouri, and Yasemin Saltuk. 2011. "Insight into the Impact Investment
Market." JP Morgan and Global Impact Investing Network Accessed August 28.
http://www.thegiin.org/assets/documents/Insight%20into%20Impact%20Investment%2
0Market2.pdf.
Lin, Chin-Huang, Ho-Li Yang, and Dian-Yan Liou. 2009. “The Impact of Corporate Social
Responsibility on Financial Performance: Evidence from Business in Taiwan.”
Technology in Society 31 (1): 56–63.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2008.10.004.
Lindgreen, Adam, and Valérie Swaen. 2010. “Corporate Social Responsibility.” International
Journal of Management Reviews 12 (1): 1–7. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00277.x.
Litan, Robert, William Baumol, and Carl J. Schramm. 2008. "Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism,
and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity." Accessed July 28.
http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/3zt2b504.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1848. “The Communist Manifesto.” Accessed August 4.
http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111marx1.html.
Massolution. 2015. “2015 Crowdfunding Industry Report.” Accessed October 8.
http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/global-crowdfunding-market-to-reach-344b-in2015-predicts-massolutions-2015cf-industry-report/45376.
Mazullo, Geoffrey. 2013. “Five Questions about the Triple Bottom Line—People, Planet and
Profit—Special Interview with Robert Rubinstein, Founder and CEO, TBLI Group™,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.” Emerging Markets ESG, April 1.
http://www.emergingmarketsesg.net/esg/2013/04/01/five-questions-about-the-triplebottom-line-people-planet-and-profit-special-interview-with-robert-rubinstein-founderand-ceo-tbli-group-amsterdam-the-netherlands-a/
McGoey, Lindsey. 2013. “Philanthrocapitalism, the Gates Foundation and Global Health.”
Accessed April 25. http://www.hinnovic.org/philanthrocapitalism-gates-foundationglobal-health-with-linsey-mcgoey/.
McKibben, Bill. 2006. “Hope vs. Hype: Is Corporate Do-Goodery for Real?” Mother Jones,
November/December.
McWilliams, Abagail, Donald S. Siegel, and Patrick M. Wright. 2006. “Corporate Social
Responsibility: Strategic Implications.” Journal of Management Studies 43 (1): 1–18.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00580.x.
Moura‐Leite, Rosamaria C., and Robert C. Padgett. 2011. “Historical Background of Corporate
Social Responsibility.” Social Responsibility Journal 7 (4): 528–39.
Mulgan, Geoff. 2009. “After Capitalism.” Prospect Magazine, April 26.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/aftercapitalism.
Mulgan, Geoff, Simon Tucker, Rushanara Ali, and Ben Sanders. 2006. Social Innovation: What
It Is, Why It Matters and How It Can Be Accelerated. Beijing: Skoll Centre for Social
Entrepreneurship, Said Business School, Oxford University.
Muller, Jerry Z. 2013. "Capitalism and inequality: what the right and the left get wrong."
Foreign Affairs 92 (2):30-51.
Munoz, Joseph Mark S. 2010. Contemporary Microenterprise. Edited by Joseph Mark S. Munoz.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Murray, Alan, and Sarah Underwood. 2012. Social and Sustainable Enterprise: Changing the
Nature of Business, Contemporary Issues in Entrepreneurship Research. Bingley, U.K.:
Emerald Book Serials and Monographs.
Natural Capital Declaration, UNEP Finance Initiative, and Global Canopy Programme. 2013.
“The Natural Capital Declaration and Roadmap.” Accessed October 1.
20
ONO: NEW FRONTIERS OF DEVELOPMENT
http://www.naturalcapitaldeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/NCDBrochure.pdf.
Newpin Australia. 2013. "Uniting Newpin." Accessed October 8. https://uniting.org/ourservices/for-children-and-young-people/newpin.
Nicholls, Alex. 2010. “The Institutionalization of Social Investment: The Interplay of Investment
Logic and Investor Rationalities.” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 1 (1): 70–100.
Nicholls, Alex, and Albert Hyunbae Cho. 2006. “Social Entrepreneurship: The Structuration of a
Field.” In Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change, edited
by Alex Nicholls, 99–118. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nicholls, Alex, and Jed Emerson. 2015. “Social Finance: Capitalizing Social Impact.” In Social
Finance, edited by Alex Nicholls, Rob Paton, and Jed Emerson, 1–41. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Nicholls, Alex, Rob Paton, and Jed Emerson, eds. 2015. Social Finance. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Norman, Myers. 1999. “Making Sense, Making Money.” Nature 402 (6757): 13–4.
Nowakowski, J. M. 2013. “Florida, Richard. The Rise of the Creative Class: Revisited.”
CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, March 15, 1300.
OECD. 2013. “Creditor Reporting System.” Accessed 11 May, 2014. .
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW.
Oleksiak, Anna, Alex Nicholls, and Jed Emerson. 2015. “Impact Investing.” In Social Finance,
edited by Alex Nicholls, Rob Paton, and Jed Emerson, 207–49. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ono, Aya. 2015. “Four Things You Need to Know about Development Impact Bonds.” Accessed
July 29. http://arunseed.jp/fourthingsyouneedtoknow/.
Openshaw, Jennifer. 2015. “‘Socially Responsible’ Investing has Beaten the S&P 500 for
Decades.” MarketWatch, May 26. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sociallyresponsible-investing-has-beaten-the-sp-500-for-decades-2015-05-21.
Osberg, Sally. 2006. “Wayfinding Without a Compass: Philanthropy’s Changing Landscape and
Its Implications for Social Entrepreneurs.” In Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of
Sustainable Social Change, edited by Alex Nicholls, 309-328. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Pinkston, Tammie S., and Archie B. Carroll. 1996. “A Retrospective Examination of CSR
Orientations: Have They Changed?” Journal of Business Ethics 15 (2): 199–206.
Porter, M. E., and M. R. Kramer. 2011. “Creating Shared Value.” Harvard Business Review 89
(1): 62–77.
Powell, Rose. 2013. “School for Social Entrepreneurs Targets ‘People with Passion’ for New
Incubator Intake.” Startup Smart, August 5.
http://www.startupsmart.com.au/growth/business-advice-and-education/school-forsocial-entrepreneurs/2013080510394.html.
Principles for Responsible Investment. 2015. “PRI Fact Sheet.” Accessed October 1.
http://www.unpri.org/news/pri-fact-sheet/.
Rafael X. Reuveny, and Thompson William R. "The North-South Divide and International
Studies: A Symposium." International Studies Review 9, no. 4 (2007): 556-64.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4621859.
Responsible Investment Association Australasia. 2016. Responsible Investment Benchmark
Report 2016. Australasia: Responsible Investment Association.
Rodin, Judith, and Margot Brandenburg. 2014. The Power of Impact Investing: Putting Markets
to Work for Profit and Global Good. Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press.
Rook, Dane P. 2012. “How Can We Know If Investors Are Coherently Linking Sustainability
Concepts?” Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 2 (3–4): 198–221.
doi:10.1080/20430795.2012.742634.
21
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY GLOBAL STUDIES
Root Capital. 2016. “About Us.” https://www.rootcapital.org/about-us.
Roper, Juliet, Steve May, and George Cheney. 2007. The Debate over Corporate Social
Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saltuk, Yasemin, and Ali El Idrissi. 2014. "Spotlight on the Market: The Impact Investor
Survey." J.P.Morgan Accessed September 15. http://www.thegiin.org/binarydata/2014MarketSpotlight.PDF.
Samer, Abu-Saifan. 2012. "Social Entrepreneurship: Definition and Boundaries." Technology
Innovation Management Review 2 (2).
Sandor, Elisabeth, Simon Scott, and Julia Benn. 2009. “Innovative Financing to Fund
Development: Progress and Prospects.”
http://www.oecd.org/development/effectiveness/44087344.pdf.
Schwartz, Rodney. 2009. "Title." Skoll Foundation Archives, September 2.
http://archive.skoll.org/2009/05/04/are-the-only-innovations-in-social-entrepreneurshipanglo-saxon/
Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sethi, S. P. 2014. “United Nations Global Compact: An Assessment of Ten Years of Progress,
Achievements, and Shortfalls.” In Globalisation and Self-Regulation: The Crucial Role
That Corporate Codes of Conduct Play in Global Business, edited by S. P. Sethi, 249-
276. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shaffer, Dan. 2014. "Integrated Capital for Social Enterprises." Stanford Social Innovation
Review Accessed July 17.
http://ssir.org/articles/entry/integrated_capital_for_social_enterprises.
Shin, Taejun. 2012. Social Finance Revolution. Tokyo: Gijutsu-Hyoron Co.
Sklair, Leslie, and David Miller. 2010. “Capitalist Globalization, Corporate Social Responsibility
and Social Policy.” Critical Social Policy 30 (4): 472–95.
Social Enterprise Alliance, 2014. “What We’re All About.” Accessed August 24.
https://www.se-alliance.org/why#whatwereallabout.
Social Finance. 2014. “About Us.” Accessed August 24. http://www.socialfinance.org.uk/aboutus/history/#sthash.zjR5ohMb.dpuf.
Social Finance UK. 2014. The Global Social Impact Bond Market. London: Social Finance
Limited.
Social Impact Investment Taskforce. 2014. "Impact Investment: The Invisible Heart of Markets."
Accessed June 25.
http://www.socialimpactinvestment.org/reports/Impact%20Investment%20Report%20FI
NAL[3].pdf.
Social Investment Task Force. 2000. “Enterprising Communities: Wealth Beyond Welfare.”
Accessed September 30.
http://www.socialinvestmenttaskforce.org/downloads/SITF_Oct_2000.pdf.
Social Ventures Australia. 2013. “Information Memorandum: Newpin Social benefit Bond.” Last
Modified April, 2013. http://staging.socialventures.com.au/assets/Newpin-SocialBenefit-Bond-IM-020513.pdf.
———. 2014. “Newpin Social Benefit Bond Annual Investor Report.” Accessed October 8.
http://socialventures.com.au/assets/Newpin_SBB_Investor_Report_2014.pdf.
———. 2015. “Newpin Social Benefit Bond Annual Investor Report.” Accessed October 8.
http://socialventures.com.au/assets/Newpin-SBB-Investor-Report-2015-web.pdf.
SSE. 2009. “Thursday Round-up: Inclusivity, iPhone, Impact Investing.” The School of Social
Entrepreneurs Accessed August 24. http://www.the-sse.org/blog/category/funding-andfundraising/page/2/.
Sternberg, Elaine. 1999. “The Stakeholder Concept: A Mistaken Doctrine.” Foundation for
Business Responsibilities 4, November.
———. 2009. “Corporate Social Reponsibility and Corporate Governance.” Economic Affairs 29
(4): 5–10. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0270.2009.01940.x.
22
ONO: NEW FRONTIERS OF DEVELOPMENT
Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2006. Making Globalization Work. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc.
Sullivan, Paul. 2010. “With Impact Investing, a Focus on More Than Returns.” The New York
Times, April 23. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/your-money/24wealth.html?_r=0.
Tanimoto, Kanji. 2013. “Sanpo-yoshi and CSR.” In Encyclopedia of Corporate Social
Responsibility, edited by Samuel O. Idowu, Nicholas Capaldi, Liangrong Zu and
Ananda Das Gupta, 2107–14. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
The Global Compact Network Nederland. 2015. "Towards a Better World, based on Shared
Values." Accessed October 7. http://www.upeace.nl/cp/uploads/downloads/globalcompact-brochure-en.pdf.
Tookel, Jessica. 2013. “Analysis: Wall Street Sees Social-Impact Bonds as a Way To Do Good
and Well.” Reuters, November 12. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/usgoldman-social-impact-bond-analysis-idUSBRE9AB0ZD20131112.
UK Parliament. 2011. Services for Young People. Edited by House of Commons Education
Committee. Norwich: Stationery Office.
UN. 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United
Nations.
UN Global Compact. 2016. “Invest in Sustainable Development.” Accessed July 14.
https://www.unglobalcompact.org/take-action/action/private-sustainability-finance.
Unite for Sight. 2009. “Social Entrepreneurship By Those In Developing Countries.” Accessed
August 24. http://www.uniteforsight.org/social-entrepreneurship-course/module8#_ftn2.
US SIF. 2014. "US Sustainable, Responsible and Impact Investing Trends." Accessed September
17. http://www.ussif.org/Files/Publications/SIF_Trends_14.F.ES.pdf.
Waddock, Sandra A., and Samuel B. Graves. 1997. “The Corporate Social Performance -
Financial Performance Link.” Strategic Management Journal 18 (4): 303–19.
Waygood, Steve. 2011. “How Do the Capital Markets Undermine Sustainable Development?
What Can Be Done To Correct This?” Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 1
(1): 81–7. doi:10.3763/jsfi.2010.0008.
WBCSD. 2014a. “Home Page.” Accessed May 1. http://www.wbcsd.org/home.aspx.
———. 2014b. “CSR: Meeting Changing Expectations.” WBCSD. Accessed May 15
http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/edocument/edocumentdetails.aspx?id=82&nosearchcontex
tkey=true.
Werna, Edmund, Ramin Keivani, and David Murphy. 2009. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Urban Development “Lessons from the South.” Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wiek, Arnim, and Olaf Weber. 2014. “Sustainability Challenges and the Ambivalent Role of the
Financial Sector.” Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 4 (1): 9–20.
doi:10.1080/20430795.2014.887349.
Wilhelm, Ian. 2009. “Can Social-Entrepreneur Groups Be More Inclusive?” The Chronicle of
Philanthropy, June 19. http://philanthropy.com/blogs/giveandtake/can-socialentrepreneur-groups-be-more-inclusive/10181.
World Bank. 2010. "Innovative Fiannce for Development Solutions: Initiatives of the World
Bank Group." Accessed September 27.
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/334&Lang=E.
———. 2015. “World Development Indicators.” Accessed October 2.
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf.
World Bank, and Information for Development Program. 2013. "Crowdfunding's Potential for
the Developing World." Accessed September 27. http://www.infodev.org/infodevfiles/infodev_crowdfunding_study_0.pdf.
Wulfson, Myrna. 2001. “The Ethics of Corporate Social Responsibility and Philanthropic
Ventures.” Journal of Business Ethics 29 (1–2): 135–45.
Young, Dennis. 2015. “Financing Social Innovation.” In Social Finance, edited by Alex
Nicholls, Rob Paton, and Jed Emerson, 96–112. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY GLOBAL STUDIES
Young, Stephen. 2003. Moral Capitalism: Reconciling Private Interest with the Public Good.
San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Yunus, Muhammad. 2006. “Social Business Entrepreneurs Are the Solution.” In Social
Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change, edited by Alex Nicholls,
39–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yunus, Muhammad, and Karl Weber. 2010. Building Social Business: The New Kind of
Capitalism That Serves Humanity’s Most Pressing Needs. 1st ed. Edited by Karl Weber.
New York: Public Affairs.
Zairi, Mohamed, and John Peters. 2002. “The Impact of Social Responsibility on Business
Performance.” Managerial Auditing Journal 17 (4): 174–8.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Aya Ono: PhD Candidate in Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University, School of
Global, Urban, and Social Studies, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
24
The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Global
Studies is one of eight thematically focused journals in
the family of journals that support the Interdisciplinary
Social Sciences knowledge community—its journals,
book series, conference and online community. It is a
section of The International Journal of Interdisciplinary
Social Sciences.
The journal investigates the dynamics of globalization
and the transformation of the local.
As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type, this
journal invites case studies that take the form of
presentations of practice—including documentation of
socially-engaged practices and exegeses analyzing the
effects of those practices.
The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Global
Studies is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
ISSN 2324-755X
The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Global
Studies is one of nine thematically focused journals in
the family of journals that support the Interdisciplinary
Social Sciences knowledge community—its journals,
book series, conference, and online community. The
journal investigates the dynamics of globalization and
the transformation of the local.
As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type, this
journal invites case studies that take the form of
presentations of practice—including documentation
of socially-engaged practices and exegeses analyzing
the effects of those practices.
The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Global
Studies is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.: