Our Views

Impact investing sits at the intersection of financial performance and measurable social and environmental outcomes. For institutional investors—DFIs, impact funds, pension funds, and PE firms—this dual mandate means due diligence must test not only “will it work?” but also “will it deliver the intended impact?”

A strong process brings discipline to decision-making: it clarifies the impact thesis, stress-tests assumptions, surfaces material ESG risks, and sets up the monitoring systems investors need after closing. This is fully aligned with the Operating Principles for Impact Management (OPIM), which promote integrating impact considerations across the investment lifecycle.

1. Impact Intentionality and Alignment

Start by validating intentionality: is the investment designed to create a specific, positive outcome—beyond what would likely happen anyway? This is where investors confirm the investee’s theory of change, target beneficiaries, and whether the impact is core to the business model rather than a side effect.

Then test strategic alignment with your mandate—sector priorities, geography, risk appetite, and timeline. The goal is to avoid mission drift later, when commercial pressures can dilute outcomes that were never properly defined at entry.

In practice, we advise investors to write down a short impact thesis that links (1) the business model, (2) the outcome pathway, and (3) the evidence base. Done well, this becomes the “north star” for structuring, monitoring, and governance throughout the holding period.

2. Financial and Commercial Viability

Impact does not compensate for a weak business model. This pillar assesses commercial viability: market demand, competitive dynamics, unit economics, pricing power, and scalability—plus the robustness of the revenue engine that will sustain impact over time.

Institutional investors should stress-test forecasts and identify the key drivers that can break performance (e.g., regulatory changes, FX exposure, supply shocks, execution capacity). This is not a box-ticking exercise—it’s how you protect both returns and outcomes.

A helpful mindset is to treat impact as a performance dimension that depends on financial health: if the enterprise cannot survive and scale, the impact will remain fragile, short-lived, or unmeasurable.

3. Impact Measurement and Management Systems

This pillar asks a simple question: can we measure and manage what we claim we are achieving? Investors increasingly rely on shared standards like IRIS+, developed by the GIIN, to create a common language for impact metrics and reduce reporting friction across portfolios.

Look for an investee that can define KPIs, establish a credible baseline, and commit to realistic targets. Equally important is the “plumbing”: data governance, collection tools, staff capacity, and quality assurance.

A practical way to structure this assessment is through the five dimensions of impact—What, Who, How Much, Contribution, and Risk—which help turn broad ambition into decision-useful evidence and monitoring plans.

4. ESG Risk Assessment and “Do No Harm” Safeguards

Impact due diligence must include a hard look at negative externalities and the systems designed to prevent harm. That means assessing material environmental, social, and governance risks and confirming compliance with relevant regulation and good international practice.

For many DFIs and institutional investors, the IFC Performance Standards are a reference point for identifying and managing E&S risks, stakeholder engagement expectations, and mitigation planning.

This pillar should not be isolated from the impact thesis. If downside risks are unmanaged—labor concerns, land conflicts, biodiversity impacts, governance weaknesses—then reputational, legal, and financial risks rise, and the credibility of the “impact” label falls.

5. Management Team and Governance Quality

Execution is the ultimate differentiator. Here, investors evaluate the management team (track record, sector expertise, operational capability) and the governance model (board effectiveness, controls, transparency, integrity).

From an impact lens, it’s not only about competence—it’s also about commitment. Does leadership make decisions consistent with the stated mission, especially when trade-offs appear? Are incentives and governance mechanisms designed to protect the impact thesis as the company scales?

A strong outcome of this pillar is clarity on who owns impact performance internally, how it is reviewed at board level, and how the investor will engage when impact KPIs go off track.

6. Investment Terms and Exit Strategy for Impact

Deal structuring is where due diligence becomes enforceable. Investors can translate findings into investment terms: reporting obligations, governance rights, milestone-based conditions, and clear expectations for impact data, ESG safeguards, and corrective actions.

Just as importantly, impact investors should plan for a responsible exit from day one. OPIM explicitly includes impact at exit as part of an end-to-end impact management approach, reinforcing that the impact story shouldn’t end at signing—or even at divestment.

A credible exit strategy considers who the next owner is, whether the mission will be sustained, and what protections (contractual or governance-based) can reduce the risk of mission drift after the investor leaves.

Why Sustainability and Impact Investing Matter to Aninver

At Aninver Development Partners, sustainability is not a slogan—it is the practical thread connecting our work across climate, resilience, and inclusive growth. We support public institutions and DFIs in designing projects where investment decisions depend on strong evidence, governance, and measurable outcomes.

Our recent assignments reflect this commitment. In Trinidad & Tobago, we are supporting the design of a high-quality blue carbon credit scheme, establishing regulatory foundations and MRV alignment to ensure credibility. In Belize, under a GCF-funded resilience initiative, we are developing vulnerability analyses and full M&E frameworks to strengthen equity and accountability. Finally, in Venezuela, we supported an IDB-backed effort to bolster the blue economy through a roadmap focused on sustainable resource use, governance, and investment planning.