ESG and Impact Investing in Family Offices
The space has matured beyond exclusion screening. Real impact investing requires its own framework, due diligence, and reporting discipline.
Key takeaways
- —ESG screening is risk management; impact investing is outcomes management.
- —Impact requires theory of change, measurable indicators, and reporting cadence.
- —Catalytic capital — concessionary returns for outsized impact — is its own category.
- —Mission-related investing inside foundations belongs in the IPS.
Impact investing in a family office: separating ESG from impact
Impact investing in a family office is structurally different from ESG screening: ESG removes harm, impact pursues measurable outcomes. Families that conflate the two end up with a portfolio that does neither well. This article maps how to run both disciplines without losing the editorial wall between them.
ESG and impact investing are often discussed interchangeably; they are not the same. ESG screening — excluding harmful sectors, scoring portfolio companies on governance and environmental criteria — is risk management. It reduces exposure to bad outcomes without aiming directly at good ones. Impact investing aims at measurable positive outcomes, often using frameworks like IMP, IRIS+, or theory-of-change methodology. Each requires its own diligence and its own reporting.
For families running both, separating the two disciplines reduces confusion. The main portfolio applies ESG screens consistently. A defined impact sleeve — sized as a percentage of total assets — pursues outcomes with explicit metrics and timeline. Catalytic capital sits alongside as a separate category: returns may be concessionary but the impact thesis must be explicit. Mission-related investing inside the family foundation belongs in the foundation's investment policy, not the office's.
Stay informed
Weekly insights for family office professionals.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.