social investing research initiative
![]()
Supported by Princeton Social Capital
social investing research guide
Having made the claim that the obsolescence of sector distinctions is the future of social investing, it may not seem appropriate to organize the most important social investing analysis, case studies, and programs thus. But for now, the distinctions are still relevant. And to the extent the distinctions seem to be breaking down (e.g., it might seem possible to shift one citation from one sector to another), we can see social investing convergence happening right before our eyes.
You may also notice that the Public Sector column of the table is much shorter than the private and non-profit sector columns. That's no coincidence either. This simplistic analysis suggests that that public sector is the laggard, presenting the most orthodoxies and sector prejudices.
We hope you will find this resource guide useful and stimulating. This guide is not intended to be exhaustive--surely there are many more resources than any one guide could usefully capture. The citations below are merely a collection of resources we think are useful. We would like to solicit your help in expanding this list of high quality resources as the PSC Social Investing Research Initiative progresses. Please send us your suggestions, and let us know what you think!
There are certainly other useful ways to understand social investing.
For example, Jed Emerson, a lecturer at Stanford University's Graduate
School of Business, refers to "five silos of related activity":
1. Corporate Social Responsibility,
2. Social Enterprise,
3. Social Investing [more narrowly defined],
4. Strategic/Effective Philanthropy, and
5. Sustainable Development.
(Blended Value Map, Oct. 2003).
But Emerson's silos can be easily matched up with the public, private
and non-profit sectors: corporate social responsibility is largely
contained within the private sector, and effective philanthropy is the
domain of the non-profit sector. The public sector, however, is not
heavily emphasized in Emerson's analysis, but nor is it in this
analysis.
Others think of a continuum between profit and social impact, and the
ability to to make an investment that strikes a certain balance
anywhere along that spectrum. But the continuum between profit and
social impact also does not serve us because social investing is
premised on the notion that there is no necessary trade off. Profit and
social impact can co-exist, and even mutually reinforce one another.
There are many imbalanced examples (i.e., all profit, no genuine social
impact; or all social impact with very little revenue), but if we
define social investing according to these skewed examples, there will
be no conceptual room for social investing with a strong double bottom
line.
